European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 18392/05
by Mile PETKOVIĆ
against Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 April 2005,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mile Petković, is a Serbian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Bor. He was represented before the Court by Ms D. Videnović, a lawyer practising in the same town. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.

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

The applicant, an attorney, represented a certain V.T. in a criminal case before the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Bor. In 2001 those proceedings were discontinued.

The applicant subsequently requested the court to pay him his fees, pursuant to Article 197 § 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

On 31 August 2001 the Municipal Court awarded the applicant 22,400 Dinars on this account.

On 5 November 2004 the applicant sought enforcement of this decision.

On 7 December 2004 the Municipal Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, dismissed the applicant’s request. It found that the decision was unsuitable for enforcement because it did not indicate the debtor.

On 19 January 2005 the three-judge panel of the same court upheld the first-instance decision.

On 23 May 2007, however, the Municipal Court apologised to the applicant for the delay and paid him the fees awarded together with the accrued statutory interest.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about his inability to collect the fees that had been awarded in his favour.

THE LAW

Following the communication of the application in the present case to the Government, by letter of 9 August 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any written comments of behalf of the applicant together with any claims for just satisfaction by 20 September 2007.

On 21 April 2008 the Registry was informed by the applicant’s representative that she had not received the letter of 9 August 2007.

On 28 April 2008 the Court therefore sent her a copy of the said letter with enclosures. The new deadline was 28 May 2008.

By letter of 9 July 2008, which was sent by registered mail, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired and that no extension of the time limit had been requested. Her attention was further 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.

By letter dated 13 August 2008, which was again sent by registered mail, the applicant’s representative was informed that the Court’s letter of 9 July 2008 was returned to it on 28 July 2008 due to her “absence”. The Court thus requested the applicant’s representative to submit the observations in question by 10 September 2008, at the latest, and once more drew her attention to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

The applicant’s representative received this letter on 19 August 2008, but has not responded to date.

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.

Sally Dollé F. Tulkens
Registrar President