THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 39141/03 by Janez BALAŽIC against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall , President, Corneliu Bîrsan , Boštjan M. Zupančič , Egbert Myjer , Ineta Ziemele , Luis López Guerra , Ann Power , judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 November 2003,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Janez Balažic , is a Slovenian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Beltinci . The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) are r epresented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič , State Attorney-General .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1. Inheritance proceedings (first part)

In 1991 the applicant ' s mother, A. Å ., died , and her heirs instituted inheritance proceedings before the Murska Sobota Basic Court .

On 13 April 1991 the Murska Sobota Basic Court ( Temeljno sodišče v Murski Soboti ) issued an interim decision determining the property to be included in the deceased ' s estate . The applicant appealed.

On 29 July 1991 the Murska Sobota Basic Court stayed the inheritance proceedings and instructed the heirs to institute separate civil proceedings in order to determine the question of ownership of the house the applicant was residing in.

2. Civil proceedings

On 13 August 1991 the applicant instituted civil proceedings with the Murska Sobota Basic Court ( Temeljno sodišče v Murski Soboti ) requesting the exemption of the disputed house from the deceased ' s estate .

Two judgments (at first and second instance) were rendered before 1994.

On 28 June 1994 the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia .

On 17 January 1995 the Supreme Court ( Vrhovno sodišče ) remitted the case for re-examination further to an appeal against the second-instance judgment issued before 1994.

Between 28 January 1998 and 1 March 1999 the Murska Sobota District Court ( Okrajno Sodišče v Murski Soboti ) held two hearings

On 1 March 1999 the first-instance judgment was issued. The applicant appealed.

On 20 June 2000 the Maribor Higher Court ( Višje sodišče v Mariboru ) upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.

Between 21 February 2001 and 4 December 2003 the Murska Sobota District Court held four hearings.

On 23 January 2004 the Murska Sobota District Court issued a judgment, rejecting the applicant ' s request. He appealed.

On 14 December 2005 a second-instance judgment was issued and the case was again remitted for re-examination.

On 7 March 2006 the Murska Sobota District Court upheld the applicant ' s request in whole but he nevertheless appealed. The judgment was served on the applicant on 11 April 2006.

On 6 March 2007 the Maribor Higher Court issued a decision, dismissing his appeal for lack of legal interest since the applicant had succeeded before the first-instance court.

On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Murska Sobota District Court which was dismissed on 26 June 2007.

It transpires from the applicant ' s letter of 7 July 2008 that he lodged a request for a constitutional review, challenging the Constitution in general. The proceedings before the Constitutional Court seem to be still pending.

3. The continuation of the inheritance proceedings

The Murska Sobota District Court fixed a hearing for 7 May 2007, which was cancelled on an unspecified date.

On 13 June 2007 the Murska Sobota District Court issued a decision staying the inheritance proceedings and instructed the parties to institute civil proceedings again . The applicant appealed .

On 11 September 2007 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.

On 5 February 2008 the Maribor Higher Court rejected the applicant ' s appeal lodged in 1991 and upheld the interim decision determining the property to be included in the deceased ' s estate , issued on 13 April 1991 (see part 1 above).

On 5 May 2008 the inheritance proceedings continued with a hearing before the Murska Sobota District Court.

On 8 May 2008 a decision appointing an expert was issued.

The inheritance proceedings seem to be still pending.

B. Relevant domestic law

For a description of the relevant domestic law see Grzin čič v. Slovenia (no. 26867/02, 3 May 2007, § 48).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts was excessive. In substance, he also complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings .

THE LAW

On 28 August 2009 the Registry sent the Government ' s observations to the applicant, who was requested to submit his observations together with any claims for just satisfactio n in reply by 9 October 2009.

By a letter dated 3 November 2009 sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant ' s observations had expired on 9 October 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ' 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 received this letter on 6 November 2009. However, no response has been received .

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.

Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall Registrar President