[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Miroslava ZOURKOVA v Cyprus - 5019/06 [2008] ECHR 980 (11 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/980.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 980

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 5019/06
by Miroslava ZOURKOVÁ
against Cyprus

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 December 2005,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention).

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Miroslava Zourková, is a Czech national who was born in 1977 and lives in Karlovice, the Czech Republic. The Cypriot Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr P. Clerides, Attorney-General of the Republic of Cyprus. The Czech Government, who expressed their wish to intervene in the proceedings in accordance with Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, are represented by their Agent Mr V. Schorm.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was married to a Cypriot national and was living with him and their daughter in Greece. Following their divorce, the Volos Court of First Instance in Greece delivered a judgment on 18 February 2002 giving her custody of the child and ordering her former husband to pay child maintenance amounting to 239 euros per month plus interest for a period of two years.

On 26 May 2004 the applicant lodged an application through the Office for the International Legal Protection of Children of the Czech Republic with the Ministry of Justice and Public Order of the Republic of Cyprus (“Ministry of Justice”) seeking the enforcement of the above judgment. The application was received by the Ministry of Justice on 7 June 2004.

On 16 June 2004 the Ministry of Justice sent a letter to the Attorney-General requesting that an application for recognition and enforcement of the judgment of the Court of Volos be filed before the competent court on the basis of Laws 50/78 (Law Ratifying the Convention on Recovery Abroad of Maintenance of 1956) and 121(I)/2000 (Law concerning the Recognition, Enforcement and Execution of Judgments of Foreign Courts).

On 7 July 2004 the Ministry of Justice informed the Greek Ministry of Justice of the application and requested a number of documents which were required for the proceedings before the Cypriot courts. On 27 July 2004 the Greek Ministry of Justice replied that it was not competent to deal with the request and that it was for the applicant through her lawyer to obtain the requested documents.

On 14 December 2004 the Ministry of Justice sent a letter to the Office for the International Legal Protection of Children requesting the relevant documents. On 14 March 2005 the Office for the International Legal Protection of Children sent the documents to the Ministry of Justice.

On 27 June 2006 the Ministry of Justice requested the Office for the International Legal Protection of Children to provide clarification of certain discrepancies between the contents of the applicant’s statement and the judgment of the Volos Court as to the amounts claimed.

The Office for the International Legal Protection of Children replied by a letter dated 19 July 2006.

On 23 August 2006 the Ministry of Justice requested the Office for the International Legal Protection of Children for further clarification relating to the period for which the payment of maintenance was due. The Ministry then sent reminders to this effect dated 22 September 2006, 13 October 2006 and 13 November 2006.

On 2 November 2006 the Office for the International Legal Protection of Children sent its response to the Ministry which was received on 22 November 2006.

On 8 December 2006 the Government filed an application for recognition and enforcement of the judgment before the Nicosia Family Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained of inactivity on the part of the Ministry of Justice of Cyprus concerning her request to enforce the judgment of the Volos Court of First Instance in Greece.

THE LAW

By a letter dated 19 September 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 31 October 2007.

By a letter dated 19 December 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for the submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 31 October 2007 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 it to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received this letter on 27 December 2007. However, she failed to submit her observations in reply to the Government’s submissions.

By their letter of 24 January 2008 the Government informed the Court that on 21 December 2007 the judgment of the Volos Court of First Instance concerning payment of maintenance had been registered, recognised and enforced in Cyprus by the Nicosia Family Court.

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 view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the Court’s list of cases.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President