FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos . 58718/10 and 60755/10 Anton PLUT against Slovenia and Milan SRÄŒNIK against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Ann Power-Forde , President, Boštjan M. Zupančič , Angelika Nußberger , judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 29 September 2010,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Anton Plut and Mr Miran Srčnik , are Slovenian nationals who were born in 1965 and 1961 and live in Ljubljana and Dob pri Ljubljani respectively.

The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicants ’ complaints concerning unfair trial were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

On 25 November 2011 the applicants were requested to designate a representative pursuant to Rule 36 § 2 of the Rules of the Court. No reply was received to that request. By a letter dated 24 February 2012, sent by registered post and received by the applicants on 8 and 9 March 2012, the applicants were reminded of the need to designate a representative . No response followed.

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court has taken into account its competence under Article 37 § 2 of the Convention to restore a case to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case s out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Stephen Phillips Ann Power-Forde Deputy Registrar President