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 >> Tibor IZSAK v Hungary - 9128/06 [2011] ECHR 214 (11 January 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/214.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 214 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
9128/06
by Tibor IZSÁK
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 January 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos,
Guido
Raimondi,
judges,
and Stanley Naismith,
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 March 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Tibor Izsák, a Hungarian national who was born in 1954 and lived in Mór. He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Istvánfalvi, a lawyer practising in Székesfehérvár. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the outcome and the alleged unfairness of a real-estate dispute.
On 16 September 2010 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints.
By letter of 19 October 2010 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Registry that the applicant had died and that his application to the Court would not be pursued because his heirs had no such intention.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant’s heirs do not wish to pursue the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.
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.
Stanley Naismith Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President