SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5975/06
by Milan VILOTIJEVIC
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
6 July 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 January 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Milan Vilotijevic, a Montenegrin national who was born in 1953 and, at the time of the introduction of the application, was detained in Szeged, Hungary. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Public Administration.
The applicant complained under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention about the length of his pre-trial detention, in place between May 2002 and
May 2005, as well as the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings conducted against him on charges of drug trafficking and other offences.
The applicant's complaint under Article 5 was communicated to the Hungarian Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The Montenegrin Government were also notified of the application but did not exercise their right under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court to intervene in the proceedings. On 15 March 2010 the observations of the Hungarian Government were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. However, no reply was received to the Registry's letter. Indeed, no communication has reached the Registry from the applicant's side since 24 March 2007.
By letter dated 18 May 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 26 April 2010 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 7 June 2010 this letter was returned by the post stating that the addressee was unknown.
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.
Stanley NaismithFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy