SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32496/03
by Ðorđije KOJOVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

	Sally Dollé, .
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 September 2003,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ðorđije Kojović, was, at the relevant time, a citizen of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. He was born in 1940 and lived in Pljevlja. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr. S. Carić.
A.  The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1.	As regards the applicant's foreign currency savings
On 8 August 1974 the applicant deposited 15,207.15 French Francs with the branch of the Yugoslav Investment Bank (“Jugoslovenska investiciona banka”) in Pljevlja, Montenegro, for a period of 13 months at a stipulated interest rate.
On an unspecified date the said State-owned bank, which in the meantime appears to have been restructured and renamed “Pljevaljska banka”, refused to release the applicant's deposit together with the interest due.
The applicant appears to have subsequently “contacted” the Government of the Republic of Montenegro on several separate occasions, seeking the release of his foreign currency savings, plus interest, but received no response.
2. As regards the applicant's health and housing situation
On 4 August 1996 the applicant had a stroke, resulting in partial paralysis. Thereafter, he continued suffering from serious cardiovascular problems and high blood pressure.
The applicant submitted that he did not have a “resolved housing situation”, and apparently addressed the Montenegrin Government on four separate occasions, from 2001 to 2003, requesting the release of his foreign currency savings, to no avail.
3. As regards events which occurred during the Second World War
During World War Two the applicant's parents died and his family's property in Bosnia and Herzegovina was allegedly destroyed by German occupying forces.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained of the continuing refusal of the respondent State to release his foreign currency savings, with interest, his consequent inability to resolve “his housing situation” or to have an adequate living standard, as well as his medical problems. In addition, the applicant complained that he had received no compensation for the destruction of his family's property during World War Two.
THE LAW
On 3 May 2006 the application was communicated to the Government of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro.
On 3 June 2006 the Republic of Montenegro declared its independence.
On 27 June 2006 the Court decided to adjourn the proceedings pending the clarification of the status of the Republic of Montenegro as well as the Republic of Serbia.
In its decision of 14 June 2006 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe noted : (i) that “Serbia ... [had continued] ... membership of [the State Union of] Serbia and Montenegro in the Council of Europe with effect from 3 June 2006”, and (ii) that it had remained a party to a number of Council of Europe Conventions signed and ratified by the former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, including the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
As of 3 June 2006 and in the absence of any indication by the applicant to the contrary, the Republic of Serbia has thus remained the sole respondent in the present proceedings before the Court.
On 22 July 2008 a letter sent by the Registry to the applicant's address was returned marked with an indication that he had “passed away” (“décédé”).
The applicant did not have a representative in the proceedings before the Court and no representative of the applicant's estate has indicated a wish to pursue the application on his behalf.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances and pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, it is no longer justified to continue with the examination of the application. 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 would require the examination of the application to be continued.
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer be applied and the present case should be struck out of the Court's list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Sally Dollé	 
	Registrar	President