FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22259/06
Primož VIDOVIČ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 May 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Primož Vidovič, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Ptuj. He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Alič, a lawyer practising in Ptuj.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant’s complaints concerning length of civil proceedings and effectiveness of remedies in this respect were communicated to the Government, who informed the Court that they had offered a settlement proposal to the applicant. The letter was forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to inform the Court whether he had accepted the offer and whether he wished to withdraw the application. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 18 December 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his reply had expired on 30 October 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received this letter on 13 January 2014. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy