by Eva LÁVKOVÁ
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8 December 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 July 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The application was lodged by Ms Eva Lávková, is a Czech national who was born in 1959 and lives in Brno. The Czech Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant’s complaints concerning the length of the alimony proceedings and partial non-execution of the Mělník District Court’s judgment of 11 December 1992 were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who replied in time.
By a letter dated 1 September 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was asked to provide the information about the stage of the proceedings for damages that she had initiated before the Ministry of Justice and to send a copy of any decision adopted in these proceedings, and, eventually, whether she had brought a civil action for damages at the competent court under section 15(2) of Act no. 82/1998 as amended. Her 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. However, the letter was sent back to the Registry with mention “inconnu”.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen