FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 65555/01 
by Martin SÝKORA 
against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 September 2005 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza, President
 Mr J. Casadevall
 Mr G. Bonello
 Mr K. Traja
 Mr S. Pavlovschi
 Ms L. Mijović, 
 Mr J. Šikuta, judges
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 October 2000,

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

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Martin Sýkora, is a Slovakian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Bratislava. He is represented before the Court by Mr J. Eke who also lives in Bratislava. The respondent Government are represented by their agents, Mr P. Kresák, succeeded by Mrs A. Poláčková as of February 2005.

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

On 16 January 1996 the applicant brought an action against a company Slovenské telekomunikácie seeking a judicial order for payment of a financial penalty under a contract of 19 October 1990.

On 18 October 2000, following a hearing held on the same day, the Bratislava I. District Court stayed the proceedings in the applicant’s action which was registered under the file number 25Cb 63/96 pending the outcome of another set of proceedings which were being conducted before the Bratislava III. District Court under the file number Cb 338/96. No appeal lay against this decision.

The applicant was not a party to the proceedings file number Cb 338/96. They ended by a judgment of the Bratislava III. District Court of 28 June 2004.

It appears that the proceedings in the applicant’s action have not been completed yet.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his action of 1996 had not been determined within a reasonable time.

THE LAW

The Court observes that by a letter of 25 January 2005 the applicant was invited to reply, by 23 February 2005, to the observations of the Government on the above application and to submit any claims for just satisfaction.

By a registered letter of 20 May 2005 the Registrar of the Fourth Section informed the applicant that the period allowed for submission of his observations in reply and claims for just satisfaction had expired 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 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.”

On 3 June 2005 a postal delivery report (avis de réception) was received at the Court indicating that the registered letter of 20 May 2005 had been received by the applicant’s representative on 27 May 2005.

The Court has received no reply to the above letters.

In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. The Court also considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the case. The application should therefore be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention.

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

Françoise Elens-Passos Nicolas Bratza 
 
Deputy Registrar President

SÝKORA v. SLOVAKIA DECISION


SÝKORA v. SLOVAKIA DECISION