FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 32901/04 by UNILEVER BETEILIGUNGS GMBH against Germany

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr P. Lorenzen , President, Mrs S. Botoucharova , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr R. Maruste , Mr J. Borrego Borrego , Mrs R. Jaeger , Mr M. Villiger , judges, and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 September 2004,

Having regard to the partial decision of 13 March 2007,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, the Unilever Beteiligungs GmbH, is a limited liability company registered under German law and is based in Hamburg . The applicant is represented before the Court by Mr C. Lenz, a lawyer practising in Stuttgart .

The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Wittling -Vogel, Ministerialdirigentin , of the Federal Ministry of Justice.

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

1. Background to the case

The applicant company is the legal successor of a corporation ( Aktiengesellschaft ) which was registered under German law and was owned, through a German subsidiary company, by the Dutch corporation Unilever N.V. In 1929 the predecessor of the applicant company acquired property in Berlin for the purpose of the construction of the headquarters of the German subsidiaries of Unilever N.V.

In 1938 the real estate was expropriated. The plot of land was supposed to serve as a site for the new building of the Chamber of Industry and Commerce and should furthermore allow the enlargement of an adjacent street. The predecessor of the applicant company received a payment of “preliminary compensation” amounting to 2.5 million Reichsmark in 1939 and 1940. However, following the payment the expropriation procedure was no longer pursued. As a consequence the land register ( Grundbuch ) remained unchanged at that time.

Following the end of the Second World War and the foundation of the German Democratic Republic (“GDR”) the property was put under the administration of the City of (East-) Berlin . In 1976 and 1977 the property and neighbouring plots of land were used for the construction of a hotel pursuant to an order of the President of the cabinet of the GDR ( Ministerrat ). In 1987 the City of Berlin transferred the property into public property ( Volkseigentum ) pursuant to the “Act on Building Land ” ( Baulandgesetz ) and the land register was changed to that effect. The compensation under GDR law amounting to 597,000 marks of the GDR was set off against the compensation which had already been paid out to the predecessor of the applicant company in 1939 and 1940.

2. The decisions rendered by the domestic authorities and courts

Following German Unification on 3 October 1990 the applicant company filed a request for restitution of the property with the Regional Office for the Resolution of Outstanding Property Issues ( Landesamt zur Regelung Offener Vermögens fragen – hereinafter referred to as “Regional Office” ) on 4 October 1990 and 22 November 1990.

On 13 December 1994 the Regional Office rejected the request.

On 16 January 1995 the applicant company brought an action for restitution in the Berlin Administrative Court .

On 17 November 1999 the court rejected the applicant company ’ s action refusing leave to appeal on points of law.

On 28 February 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint against the refusal of leave to appeal on points of law with the Federal Administrative Court .

On 21 June 2000 the Federal Administrative Court rejected the applicant company ’ s complaint.

On 10 August 2000 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court which was rejected on 11 March 2004.

COMPLAINTS

Invoking Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

By letter dated 24 September 2007 the applicant company notified the Court of its wish to withdraw the present application. The Government did not object to the withdrawal.

The Court takes note of the applicant company ’ s wish to withdraw the application. It is satisfied that neither the respect for human rights as defined in the Conven tion and its Protocols no r any pu blic policy reasons justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).

Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Cou rt unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President