European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 5989/05
Dean KOVACIC
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 June 2012 as a Committee composed of:

              Ann Power-Forde, President,
              Boštjan M. Zupancic,
              Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 February 2005,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dean Kovacic, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Sežana. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Vajda, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana..

The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his right to respect for his physical integrity and privacy was breached by a police order to undergo a medical examination, which could only be based on the fact that he had been charged with possession of marijuana in the past. The police had not shown that any reasonable suspicion as to his being under the influence of drugs while allegedly driving existed. He also complained of a violation of his rights under Article 8 as regards respect for his home, alleging that the police unlawfully entered his home.

The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings against him were unfair. In particular, he alleged that he was unjustifiably ordered to undergo a blood test; that the domestic courts’ decisions relied solely on the police officers’ statements; that the judges were biased and that the principle of the presumption of innocence was breached.

Furthermore, the applicant complained that the Constitutional Court, by rejecting his constitutional appeal, violated his rights under Article 13 of the Convention.

Finally, the applicant complained that he was unable to peacefully enjoy his possessions as guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the police officers having entered his home.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention in that the police order to give a blood sample in connection with Article 6 § 1 as regards the privilege against self-incrimination were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

By letter dated 24 February 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 15 December 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’s 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. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 8 March 2012. However, no response has been received.

THE LAW

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.

              Stephen Phillips              Ann Power-Forde
              Deputy Registrar              President