BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Petar MIJAJLOVIC v Serbia - 42973/06 [2010] ECHR 734 (29 April 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/734.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 734 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
42973/06
by Petar MIJAJLOVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 October 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Petar Mijajlović, a Serbian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Beograd. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Savić, a lawyer practicing in Belgrade. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings to which he was a party.
On 1 September 2009 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of this complaint.
On 4 December 2009 the applicant informed the Court that he wanted to withdraw the application.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. It therefore grants the applicant's withdrawal request.
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.
Sally Dollé Françoise
Tulkens
Registrar President