European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 13157/04
by Viktor SERWETNICKÝ and Anna SERWETNICKÁ
against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 31 March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Rait Maruste, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 April 2004,

Having regard to the partial decision of 6 May 2008,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicants, Mr Viktor Serwetnický and Mrs Anna Serwetnická, are Czech nationals who were born in 1937 and 1941 respectively and live in Valašská Bystřice. They are represented before the Court by Mr J. Miketa, of the Czech Bar. The Czech Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice.

The applicants originally complained about a violation of their property rights guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that they had been obliged to surrender certain agricultural land in the context of restitution proceedings.

On 6 May 2008 the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government which submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application on 5 September 2008.

On 9 September 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants’ representative who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 23 October 2008.

On 27 November 2008 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant’s representative another letter by registered mail stating that since no reply had been received the Court would consider striking the case out of its list. The applicants’ representative received this letter on 2 December 2008, but he has not contacted the Court since on the matter.

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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 Rait Maruste
Registrar President