by SneZana MILOŠEVIĆ
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 July 2008,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Ms. SneZana Milošević, is a Serbian national who was born and is living in Bujanovac, Serbia. She was represented before the Court by Ms V. Tasić, a lawyer practising in Leskovac. 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.
A. The first set of proceedings
On 15 January 1997 the Municipal Court in Bujanovac issued a judgment whereby it dissolved the applicant’s marriage with C.M., granted her sole custody of their, at the time, two year old child, and specified the respondent’s access rights.
On 5 May 1997 this judgment became final.
B. The second set of proceedings
On 30 October 2002 the respondent filed a claim with the Municipal Court in Lebane, seeking restoration of his custody rights.
Following a remittal, by 8 February 2007 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of C.M. by granting him sole custody of the child, ordering the applicant to pay monthly child maintenance, and regulating her access rights. This decision is currently pending on appeal.
C. The enforcement proceedings
On 18 July 1997 the Municipal Court in Lebane ordered the enforcement of the final judgment dated 15 January 1997.
On 24 April 2007 the Municipal Court terminated the enforcement proceedings based on its decision of 8 February 2007.
On 10 May 2007 the applicant filed an appeal against this ruling with the District Court in Leskovac.
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the final custody judgment rendered on 15 January 1997, as well as the excessive length of the second set of proceedings.
Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant further complained about the violation of the right to respect for her family life due to the said non-enforcement, as well as the fact that this non-enforcement had apparently made it possible for the respondent to reclaim sole custody of their child.
Lastly, invoking Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the absence of an effective domestic remedy for procedural delay.
On 3 November 2008 the applicant accepted a friendly settlement offer, whereby the Government promised to pay her ex gratia 10,000 euros. The applicant, in return, agreed to withdraw her application and waived any further claims in respect of the present case.
On 26 November 2008 the respondent State paid the above-specified amount.
On 11 December 2008 the applicant informed the Court that she withdrew her application.
In view of the above, the Court considers that the applicant no longer wishes 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens Registrar President