SZAKACS PAP proti Maďarsku

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31799/04
by Sándor SZAKÁCS PAP
against Hungary

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

Mrs F. Tulkens, President,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr M. Ugrekhelidze,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Mularoni,
Mr D. Popović, judges,
and Mrs F. Elens-passos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 June 2004,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sándor Szakács Pap, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Budapest. He was represented before the Court by his father, Mr Gy. Szakács Pap. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.

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

On 23 March 1998 the applicant was charged with larceny.

Between 26 June 2001 and 30 September 2005 the Pest Central District Court held nine hearings. On the latter date, it found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year and four months’ imprisonment. The Public Prosecutor appealed.

On 19 June 2006 the Budapest Regional Court, after holding two hearings, upheld the first-instance judgment on the merits, but reduced the applicant’s sentence to one year’s imprisonment, in mitigation.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about length of the proceedings.

PROCEDURE

On 5 October 2006 the Court decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaint.

On 5 January 2007 the Government submitted their observations.

By a letter dated 31 January 2007, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit his observations in reply by 14 March 2007.

By letters dated 18 July and 16 August 2007, the latter having been sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was reminded that the period allowed for the submission of his observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. However, no response to the Court’s letters has been received.

THE LAW

The Court notes that on 18 July 2007 the applicant’s representative was reminded that the period allowed for submission of written observations had expired and he was warned of the possibility that the case might be struck out of the Court’s list. The representative did not reply to the Court.

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.

Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

F. Elens-passos F. Tulkens Deputy Registrar              President