FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38688/06
by Emília HERZOGOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20 October 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
	Nicolas Bratza, President,
	Lech Garlicki,
	Ljiljana Mijović,
	Ján Šikuta,
	Mihai Poalelungi,
	Nebojša Vučinić,
	Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 September 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Emília Herzogová, is a Slovak national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bratislava. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1.  Factual background
The applicant, an entrepreneur, and another individual, A., are the owners and statutory representatives of a company, B.
On 11 May 2005 the applicant inspected a case file concerning insolvency proceedings before Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd), where she discovered a copy of a letter from A. stating that she was the subject of a nationwide search (celoštátne pátranie) by the police.
Subsequently, upon her repeated requests, the applicant was informed by the Directorate General of the Police (Prezídium Policajného zboru) that the statement that she was a wanted person was not true.
2.  Restriction of liberty
On 18 May 2005 the applicant again inspected the above-mentioned case file. While she was in the insolvency section of the Regional Court, the applicant was approached by two uniformed police officers who checked her identity, informed her that she was under arrest (zatknutá), refused to identify themselves and escorted her on foot to Bratislava Staré Mesto East District Police Department (“the DPD”).
It was later established that the applicant had not in fact been arrested but had merely been taken to the police station (predvedená) and that one of the officers was C.
After having been handed over to the DPD, the applicant was again informed, by officer D., that she was under arrest, that an arrest warrant would be obtained, that she would learn of its contents shortly and that she was wanted by the Topoľčany DPD at the request of an investigator of that department, E.
The applicant was kept in Bratislava Staré Mesto East police station until a police unit from Topoľčany arrived to escort her to Topoľčany. On their arrival, it was established that they had neither a warrant for the applicant’s arrest nor written approval of her detention from a prosecutor. On the same day, at 5.30 p.m., the applicant was released.
3.  Remedies used
On 24 October 2005, further to the applicant’s complaint, the Director of the Bratislava Staré Mesto East DPD admonished officer D. in writing for having erroneously informed the applicant that she was under arrest.
On 17 May 2010 the Trenčín Higher Military Office of Public Prosecution commenced criminal proceedings against one or more unknown officers of the Topoľčany DPD in connection with the above-mentioned incident.
The applicant’s other attempts at having her rights and interests protected by the Inspection Service of the Ministry of the Interior, the Public Prosecution Service and the Constitutional Court have been unsuccessful.
COMPLAINTS
1.  The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention (private life) that entering her name on a list of wanted persons and labelling her as a person subject to a “well-founded suspicion of having committed a criminal offence” lacked a legal basis, was not proportionate to its aim and was not investigated adequately and sufficiently when she made her complaints.
2.  The applicant complained that she had been deprived of liberty in contravention of Article 5 of the Convention, since her detention was not authorised under paragraph 1 of that Article. In particular, the applicant claimed that her deprivation of liberty did not fall under Article 5 § 1 (b) of the Convention, since its true purpose was no more than to establish her address, and she had never failed to comply with the obligation to disclose it.
3.  The applicant also complained that the guarantees of a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had not been respected in the proceedings on her constitutional complaint in that the Constitutional Court had failed to support its decision with adequate reasoning.
THE LAW
The Court reiterates Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1.  The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a)  the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court observes that, by letter of 8 March 2010 and registered letters of 31 May, 5 and 29 July 2010, sent to all the applicant’s known addresses, she was invited to submit further information concerning her case. The letters of 31 May and 29 July 2010 were returned by the postal service to the Court as “non réclamé” or addressee “inconnue”. No reply has been received.
By letters of 26 July and 18 August 2010 the applicant inquired at the Court about the status of her application and provided the address of a lawyer as her contact address.
By registered letters of 3 and 20 August 2010 copies of all previous communication were sent to the applicant via the lawyer’s address and the applicant was requested to submit the information sought, by 10 September 2010. The applicant was reminded that it was in her own interest to inform the Court of any change in her address and that a failure to do so and to respond may result in the Court deciding on the admissibility of the case on the basis of the file as it stands as well as concluding that the applicant is no longer interested in pursuing the application and striking the application out of its list of cases. The former letter was received at the lawyer’s address on 6 August 2010 while the latter was returned by the postal service to the Court on 20 September 2010 as “non réclamé”. The information requested has not been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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 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
		President