by Nino SMAKOVIK
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 March 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Nino Smakovik, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Kavadarci. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Kuzmanov, a lawyer practising in Kavadarci. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The case concerns criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant and two defendants for counterfeiting. On 7 October 2004 they were finally convicted.
On 27 May 2008 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention that he had not been given a fair trial given that the defendants’ initial statements corroborating his guilt had been unlawfully obtained, namely under duress.
On 23 September 2008 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaint. On 8 October 2008 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply before 19 November 2008. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, he failed to respond to a registered letter dated 19 February 2009, warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant do not intend to pursue the application (see Limkoski and others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 27870/02, 2 February 2006). 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 examination of this application to be continued. Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer