by Petr UREŠ
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 May 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 December 2004,
Having regard to the partial decision of 20 May 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Petr Ureš, is a Czech national who was born in 1947 and lives in Cvikov. He is represented before the Court by Ms D. Koldovská, a lawyer practising in Česká Lípa. The Czech Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant originally complained of a violation of his property rights guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that he had been deprived of property without an adequate compensation.
On 29 May 2008 the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government which submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application on 2 September 2008.
On 8 September 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 21 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 applicant’s representative received this letter on 2 December 2008, but she has not contacted the Court since on the matter.
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.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen