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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Milos DURKA v Slovakia - 18596/05 [2010] ECHR 135 (19 January 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/135.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 135 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
18596/05
by Miloš ĎURKA
against
Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Ján
Šikuta,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Nebojša
Vučinić,
judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 May 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Miloš Ďurka, is a Slovak national who was born in 1963 and lives in Košice. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Olej, a lawyer practising in Košice. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 24 September 2003 the Košice Regional Court found the applicant guilty of having prepared a murder and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. In the absence of an appeal the judgment became final on 7 November 2003.
Following a complaint in the interest of law (sťaZnosť pre porušenie zákona) lodged by the Prosecutor General on 7 May 2004, the Supreme Court quashed the above judgment on 22 June 2004 and remitted the case to the Regional Court. It concluded that the judgment had been adopted unlawfully in the applicant’s favour.
On 24 November 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for lack of jurisdiction.
The criminal proceedings are still pending.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that the Supreme Court’s decision of 22 June 2004 to quash the judgment which had become final on 7 November 2003 had been contrary to his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
By letter dated 15 September 2009 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 27 October 2009.
By letter dated 23 November 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 27 October 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’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’s representative received this letter on 27 November 2009. 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 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