THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 43096/12 Miloslav NIKOLOV against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 16 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Iulia Antoanella Motoc , President, Ján Šikuta , Branko Lubarda , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 July 2012 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Miloslav Nikolov , is a Slovak national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Bratislava . He was represented before the Court by Mr L. Štanglovič , a lawyer practising in Šaľa .

The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková .

Relying on Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention the applicant complained that the proceedings in respect of his request of 26 April 2011 for release from detention pending trial on charges of criminal damage and attempted murder had not been effective and speedy and that he had been denied an enforceable right to compensation for the alleged breach of the “speediness” requirement.

On 19 May 2014 t he above-mentioned complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

The Government ’ s observations were then forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations and claims for just satisfaction, by 1 0 Nov ember 201 4 .

By way of a registered letter of 2 7 January 201 5 addressed to his lawyer, the applicant was informed that the period for submission of his observations and claims had expired and that neither any observations nor a request for extension of the time-limit had been received. At the same time, the applicant ’ s attention was drawn to the provision s of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

Pursuant to information available on the Internet site of the post office of the destination country, the letter of 27 January 2015 was received by the addressee on 2 Febru ary 201 5 . However, no response has been received.

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the case.

In view of the above, it is appropriate 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.

Done in English and notified in writing on 9 July 2015 .

Marialena Tsirli Iulia Antoanella Motoc Deputy Registrar President