THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19713/08
Dragoslav VELJKOVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Dragoljub Popović,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 April 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Dragoslav Veljković, was a Serbian national, who was born in 1948 and lived in Jagodina.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their successive Agents, Mr S. Carić and Ms V. Rodić.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, about the non-enforcement of the decision rendered by the Labour Court (Osnovni sud udruženog rada) in Belgrade on 5 June 1991, ordering the applicant’s reinstatement, payment of salaries and due benefits and costs of the proceedings.
On 8 March 2012 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaint.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 16 April 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
By letter dated 18 November 2013 the Government’s unilateral declaration was forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit any comments which he may wished to make in reply.
Further, by a letter of 21 February 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 16 December 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.
On 20 December 2013 and 8 April 2014 the correspondence of 18 November 2013 and 21 February 2014, respectively, was returned to the Registry with a note by the postal service indicating that the applicant had died.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant has died and that no request has been submitted by his heirs to pursue the examination of the case. In these circumstances the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) 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.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy