BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF
SÝKORA v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 31519/02)
JUDGMENT
(Striking
out)
STRASBOURG
13
November 2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Sýkora v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Giovanni
Bonello,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku,
Nebojša
Vučinić,
judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 21 October 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 31519/02) against the Slovak
Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Slovak national, Mr Milan Sýkora (“the
applicant”), on 8 August 2002.
- The
applicant was represented by Mrs A. Stankovianska, a lawyer
practising in Bratislava. The Slovak Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mrs M. Bálintová,
their Co-Agent.
- The
applicant alleged, in particular, that his right under Article 6 §
1 of the Convention to a fair hearing and his right under Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been
violated in proceedings concerning the use of a flat.
- By
a decision of 16 October 2007, the Court declared the application
admissible.
-
The Government, but not the applicant, filed further written
observations (Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
- The applicant was born in 1961. At the time of
introduction of the application he had his registered address in
Bratislava.
- The
application concerned civil proceedings in which courts at two levels
of jurisdiction had cancelled the right of joint lease of a flat held
by the applicant and another person and ruled that the latter was the
sole tenant. The courts had further ordered that the applicant vacate
the flat within fifteen days from the day on which a substitute
flat was granted to him. The decision became final on 21 February
2002. The facts of the case are described in further detail in the
Court's decision on the admissibility of the application delivered on
16 October 2007.
THE LAW
- In
a letter dated 24 October 2007 the Registry informed the parties of
the Court's decision to declare the application admissible. The
parties were invited to submit additional observations on the
questions put by the Court by 18 December 2007. The applicant was
also invited to submit, within the same time-limit, his claims for
just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention.
- The
Government submitted their observations on 18 December 2007. The
Court received no reply from the applicant whose representative had
received the above letter on 29 October 2007.
- On
10 January 2008 a copy of the Government's additional observations
was sent to the applicant who was invited to submit by 21 February
2008 any written observations which he might wish to make. The
applicant's representative was also asked to inform the Court whether
the applicant intended to pursue the application.
- In
the absence of any reply by the applicant to the above letters of
24 October 2007 and 10 January 2008, the President of the
Chamber decided that further information was required from the
applicant concerning the division and distribution of his and his
former wife's matrimonial property. The applicant was requested to
submit the relevant information by 29 August 2008. He was informed
that in case of no reply the Court might decide on the merits of the
case on the basis of the file as it stood or, alternatively, conclude
that the applicant was no longer interested in pursuing the
application and decide to strike it out of its list of cases.
- The
applicant's representative received the letter of 5 August 2008 on 11
August 2008. However, no response has been received.
- 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.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
