FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 72013/01 by Pavol BENKO and Iveta BENKOV Á against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section), sitting on 16 January 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Ms L. Mijović , Mr J. Šikuta , Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges ,

and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 May 2001 ,

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 Pavol Benko and Mrs Iveta Benková, are Slovakian nationals who were born in 1965 and 1964 respectively. They are a married couple and live in Trenčianske Teplice. The respondent Government are represented by Mrs A. Pol áčková , their Agent.

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

In 1995 the applicants bought a plot of agricultural land from Mrs X. They failed to ensure registration of the sale in the Land Registry. As X had been previously deprived of her legal capacity to act, she concluded the transaction through a guardian.

In 1997 Mrs X sold the same land to a third person, Mr Y. This sale was registered and Y became the owner of the plot.

On 29 October 1997 the applicants brought an action against X and Y seeking a judicial ruling declaring the second sale void.

The action was granted at first instance on 25 February 1999 , but dismissed on appeal on 18 November 1999 and on appeal on points of law on 28 November 2000 .

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the above proceedings were unfair and that their outcome was arbitrary and wrong in law.

THE LAW

The Court observes that by a letter of 6 January 2006 the applicants were invited to reply, by 20 February 2006 , to the observations of the Government on the above application and to submit any claims for just satisfaction.

By a registered letter of 28 April 2006 the Registrar of the Fourth Section informed the applicants that the period allowed for submission of their observations in reply and claims for just satisfaction had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants ’ attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provides that:

“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...

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.”

A postal delivery report ( avis de réception ) was returned to the Court on 23 May 2006 indicating that the registered letter of 28 April 2006 had been received by the applicants on 17 May 2006.

In a letter of 10 October 2006 the Registrar of the Fourth Section expressly invited the applicants to inform the Court whether or not they wished to pursue the application. He also informed them that a failure to respond might be interpreted as a failure to pursue an application within the meaning of Rule 44E of the Rules of Court and might lead to the application being struck out of the Court ’ s list of cases.

The Court has received no reply to the above letters.

In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicants do not intend to pursue their application. The Court also 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. The application should therefore be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should also be discontinued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Dec id es to strike the application out of its list of cases.

T.L. Early Nicolas B ratza Registrar President