THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 13957/03 by Stefan KONJAR against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 April 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C. Bîrsan , President , Mr B.M. Zupančič , Mrs E. Fura-Sandström , Mrs A. Gyulumyan , Mr E. Myjer , Mr David Thór Björgvinsson , Mrs I. Berro-Lefèvre, judges , and Mr S. Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 April 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Stefan Konjar , is a Slovenian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Frankfurt ( Germany ) . He was represented before the Court by Mr H. Newrzella , a lawyer practising in Frankfurt . The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General.

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

In 1985 the applicant ’ s mother died and subsequently the inheritance proceedings were instituted in the same year . The proceedings were suspended several times because the applicant and his three brothers instituted different sets of civil proceedings to challenge the validity of a will their mother made in 1984.

On 25 April 1989 the Ljubljana Basic Court ( Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani ) rejected the claim, filed by the applicant and two of his brothers, to declare void the disputed will. After the judgment had been quashed on appeal and remitted for reconsideration, the Ljubljana Basic Court rejected the claim again on 18 September 1990 . The brothers lodged an appeal against this decision which was rejected, on 17 April 1991 , by the Ljubljana Higher Court ( Višje sodišče v Ljubljani ) .

On 25 February 1992 the applicant and all three of his brothers lodged a new claim. On 31 January 1997 the (renamed) Ljubljana Local Court ( Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani ) rejected the claim. One of the brothers appealed and the Ljubljana Higher Court rej ected the appeal on 7 September 1998.

The inheritance proceedings apparently continued. The applicant did not attend any of the four hearings held between 14 September 1999 and 23 March 2000 and did not appoint his attorney to represent him. The parties were not able to reach an agreement.

On 29 August 2000 the applicant and his brothers lodged a request for reopening of the proceedings concerning the disputed will.

After the hearing held on 30 October 2000 , the Ljubljana Local Court ( Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani ) again suspended the inheritance proceedings until the court ruled on this request.

On 8 May 2001 , after a hearing, the Ljubljana Local Court rejected the request. The brothers appealed and the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the appeal on 24 January 2002 . The decision was apparently served on the applicant on 13 February 2002 .

The inheritance proceedings contin ued with a hearing held on 16 October 2002. Due to the impossibility o f reach ing an agreement , the court appointed on 6 December 2002 three experts of different professions to asses s the value of the property in question. On 24 September 2003, after receiving expert opinions, the applicant and his brothers filed pleadings.

According to the Government, one of the expert opinions had still not been produced by January 2006.

No information is available as to the further conduct of the proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial was violated by the unfairness and the excessive length of proceedings. In substance, he also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

On 10 October 2005 the application was communicated to the Government.

On 20 January 2006 the Government ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 20 March 2006.

On 15 February 2006 the Court received the applicant ’ s reply. Due to the changes in his legal representation, the applicant was granted an extension of the time-limit for submitting his observations. On 23 May 2006 and, further to a new extension of a time-limit, on 6 September 2006 the applicant submitted his observations.

On 14 December 2006 the applicant was requested by the Court to provide information concerning the state of the inheritance proceedings and to submit supporting documents.

In his letter of 18 January 2007 the applicant ’ s lawyer indicated that the domestic proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s complaints were no longer pending. He has not submitted any further information, nor has he sent any copies of the documents which would support this assertion.

In the Court ’ s letter of 25 January 2007, sent by registered mail, the applicant was reminded that he had repeatedly failed to submit information and copies of documents concerning the conduct of the inheritance proceedings. Finally, he was requested to submit by 15 February 2007 the relevant documents and was advised that the failure to comply with the Court ’ s request might result in the strike-out of his application.

As it appears from the acknowledgement-of-receipt card, the letter was received on 31 January 2007.

The applicant has not replied.

The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:

“1. 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; or

(b) the matter has been resolved; or

(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant failed to adduce evidence and provide crucial information requested by the Court. It finds no reason why the applicant should not be able to send the requested information, nor did he provide any explanation thereof (see Vičič v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 76357/01 , 12 December 2006).

The Court therefore concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.

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 Court unanimously

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

Stanley Naismith Corneliu Bîrsan              Deputy Registrar President