THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36080/02
by Jože VIDERGAR
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC. Bîrsan, President,
MrB.M. Zupančič,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrE. Myjer,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson,
MrsI. Ziemele, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Section Registrar.
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 August 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jože Vidergar, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1956 and supposedly lives in Trbovlje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 16 August 1991 the applicant handed over some jewellery to a company FENIKS, which was supposed to sell it by means of consignment.
On 27 September 1991 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against FENIKS, claiming that he had not received the jewellery back, nor had he received any payment.
The Ljubljana Basic Court (Temljeno sodišče v Ljubljani) rejected his claim on 9 June 1992.
On 19 February 1993 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) quashed the first-instance court’s judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia.
Between 6 February 1998 and 3 March 2000 the (renamed) Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani) held six hearings.
On 2 February 1999 none of the parties attended the hearing and the court, as a result, stayed the proceedings. The summons for the hearing could not be served on the applicant since he was in a foreign country serving a prison sentence.
On 12 October 1999 the applicant lodged written submissions and modified his claim.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 3 May 2000.
FENIKS appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court on 19 May 2000.
On 27 February 2002 the court allowed the appeal in part and decreased the amount of money awarded.
The Ljubljana Higher Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 8 April 2002.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial was violated by an excessive length of proceedings and wrong assessment of evidence by the domestic courts. In substance, he also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant lodged his application on 26 August 2002. In the initial correspondence he was advised that he should keep the Court informed of any change of address.
On 28 September 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government. On 3 October 2006 a letter was sent to the applicant informing him of that decision. This letter, which was first sent to the applicant’s present address and subsequently to his permanent address indicated in his application form, was returned to the Court on 24 October 2006 and 23 November 2006 respectively.
On 5 January 2007 the Government, at the Court’s request, confirmed that the applicant had no other registered address.
On 7 February 2007 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit his written observations by 29 March 2007. The letter sent to the applicant in this respect, was returned to the Court on 26 February 2007 and was stamped with a comment “gone away”.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court observes that the applicant should have been aware of his obligation to keep the Court informed of any change of address. The Court however notes that it sought the applicant at both addresses indicated in his application form. However, all letters were returned to the Court. Consequently, the applicant has not submitted his observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.
In view of the above, the Court infers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application (see Solodov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30278/02, 8 July 2004). Furthermore, it finds that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaCorneliu Bîrsan
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy