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 >> Peter ZUPAN v Slovenia - 17179/06 [2011] ECHR 1627 (27 September 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1627.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1627 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
17179/06
by Peter ZUPAN
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ganna
Yudkivska,
President,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Angelika
Nußberger,
judges,
and Stephen
Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar.
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 April 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Peter Zupan, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Celje. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Končan Verstovšek, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant was a party to proceedings which were finally resolved before 1 January 2007, that is, before the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) became operational. He subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.
THE LAW
On 20 October 2009 the President of the Section decided to communicate the application to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 8 June 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 8 April 2010 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 10 June 2010. 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.
Stephen Phillips Ganna Yudkivska
Deputy Registrar President