FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25625/08
Denis ŽERJAV
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24 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 27 May 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Denis Žerjav, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Pernica He was represented before the Court by Mr A Ploj, a lawyer practising in Maribor.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the length of proceedings and lack of effective remedy in this respect. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the alleged unfairness of the proceedings.
The applicant’s complaints concerning the length of proceedings and effectiveness of remedies were communicated to the Government, who on 13 March 2014 informed the Court that a settlement had been reached at the domestic level. The information was forwarded to the applicant who was invited by the Court to specify whether he wished to withdraw the application. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 17 April 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his reply had expired on 8 April 2014 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 24 April 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