FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 33223/03 by Kl á ra DOBRO Ň OV Á against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President, Mr J. Casadevall , Mr G. Bonello , Mr K. Traja , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr J. Šikuta , Mrs P. Hirvelä , judges, and Mrs F. Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 October 2003,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Kl á ra Dobro ň ov á , is a Slovak national who was born in 1946. At the relevant time the applicant lived in Žilina. She wa s rep resented before the Court by Mr M. Klima š ovsk ý , a lawyer practising in Žilina. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Piro šíková.

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

1. Proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s claim of 1996

On 18 March 1996 the applicant filed an action with the District Court in Žilina . She claimed compensation for her share in a business which she had jointly run with the defendant.

The District Court transferred the case to the Regional Court in Bansk á Bystrica which requested the Supreme Court to determine which court had jurisdiction to deal with the case. The file was returned to the Regional Court . On 17 April 1997 it was sent to the District Court in Žilina.

On 8 August 2000 the District Court asked the app licant to pay the court fee. As she failed to do so, the District Court discontinued the proceedings on 8 January 2001. The applicant paid the fee on 16 January 2001 .

On 11 February 2003 the President of the District Court informed the applicant that the delay in the proceedings was due to the heavy workload of judges.

On 20 November 2003 the District Court invited the applicant to remedy certain shortcomings in her action within 10 days. The applicant replied on 3 December 2003 .

On 17 February 2004 the judge heard the applicant and invited her to eliminate certain formal shortcomings in her action within 15 days. The applicant replied on 23 February 2004 .

In a decision of 26 February 2004 the District Court asked the applicant to specify her claim and to supplement her action within 15 days. The decision indicated the information required.

On 2 April 2004 the District Court quashed the above decision of 8 January 2001 to discontinue the proceedings as the applicant had paid the court fee.

On 7 May 2004 the District Court rejected the applicant ’ s action on the ground that, despite a prior warning, she had not brought it in accordance with the applicable requirements.

On 14 June 2004 the applicant appealed.

On 28 September 2004 the Regional Court in Ž ilina upheld the first-instance decision.

On 10 January 2005 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. The Supreme Court rejected it as being inadmissible on 17 June 2005.

2. Applicant ’ s submissions to the Constitutional Court

On 31 August 2002 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about delays in the above proceedings and claimed compensation.

On 30 September 2002 a constitutional judge informed the applicant in a letter of the formal requirements for bringing proceedings before the Constitutional Court . The applicant was invited to bring her submissions into line with those requirements within 15 days from the date of delivery of the letter, failing which the Constitutional Court would dismiss her complaint.

On 21 October 2002 the applicant, represented by a lawyer, informed the Constitutional Court that she complained about delays in the proceedings before the District Court in Ž ilina and claimed 100,000 Slovak korunas as compensation for damage.

On 4 December 2002 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as falling short of formal requirements.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complain ed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings . She also alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that she had no effective remedy in that respect.

THE LAW

The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in her case and that she had no effective remedy at her disposal in that respect. Those provisions, in so far as relevant, read as follows:

Article 6 §1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

On 28 August 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government (Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court).

By a letter of 20 November 2006 the observations submitted by the Government were sent to the applicant ’ s representative who was invited to submit, by 5 January 2007, any written observations which he might wish to make on the applicant ’ s behalf, together with any claims for just satisfaction.

By a letter of 17 April 2007 sent by registered mail the applicant ’ s lawyer was informed that the period allowed for submission of the applicant ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the case had expired on 5 January 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. The lawyer ’ s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provides:

“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ...”

In a telephone conversation between the Court ’ s Registry and an assistant to the applicant ’ s lawyer held on 25 June 2007 the latter confirmed that the Registrar ’ s letter of 17 April 2007 had reached the advocate ’ s office on 23 April 2007. The advocate ’ s assistant explained that they were unable to contact the applicant who apparently worked abroad.

In a letter of 6 July 2007 sent both by registered mail and fax the applicant ’ s lawyer was invited to inform the Court, before 26 July 2007, whether or not the applicant wished to pursue her application. The Court has received no reply.

In view of the above and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue the case. 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 would require further examination of the application.

In these circumstances, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and 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.

Fatoş Aracı Nicolas B ratza Deputy Registrar President