SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 33164/02 by Zigmas ASTRAUSKAS and Stasys ZARANKA against Lithuania

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mrs F. Tulkens , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr I. Cabral Barreto , Mr R. Türmen , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze , Mrs A. Mularoni , Mrs D. Jočienė , judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 August 2002,

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 applicants, Mr Zigmas Astrauskas and Mr Stasys Zaranka , are Lithuanian nationals who were bo rn in 1957 and 1942 respectively and live in Šilalė . The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Elvyra Baltutytė .

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

In 1996, the applicants were sued for having caused pecuniary damage to their former employer, a State-run company.

By the decision of 30 August 2001 the Klaipėda Regional Court slightly reduced the amount of damages set by the first-instance court. The case was examined in the applicants ’ absence, but in the presence of the claimant ’ s representative. That decision became effective on the same date.

On 2 July 2002 the court bailiffs informed the applicants that they had commenced the enforcement procedure. The applicants alleged that they had found out about the decision of 30 August 2001 from the bailiffs, the Klaipėda Regional Court not having notified them of the date of the appellate hearing. In the applicants ’ view, the principle of adversarial proceedings had been breached.

On 7 September 2005 the President of the Chamber communicated this aspect of the case to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits of the case on 2 February 2006.

By a letter from the Registry of the Court on 16 February 2006, the applicants were requested to submit, by 30 March 2006, their comments on the Government ’ s observations.

In view of the absence of any reply, the Registry sent another letter dated 5 May 2006 by registered mail, informing the applicants that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired, and that no extension of the time-limit had been requested. The applicants were warned, under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, that the Court may strike a case out of its list where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicants do not intend to pursue the application.

COMPLAINTS

1. Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicants complained that the proceedings had not been fair in that the hearing of 30 August 2001 had been held in their absence, without them being notified about the date thereof. The applicants further complained that the proceedings had been excessively long.

2. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicants complained that their property rights had been violated on account of the actions by the bailiffs undertaken in the execution of the court decision against them.

THE LAW

The Court notes that, despite the Registry ’ s letters of 16 February 2006 and 5 May 2006, the applicants have not submitted their comments on the Government ’ s observations; nor have they made any other submissions to the Court since the communication of the case.

Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicants do not intend to pursue the application. 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 examination of this application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

S. Dollé F. TULKENS Registrar President