FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14912/07
Vladimirs ARACKIS
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 October 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 March 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Vladimirs Arackis, is a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia, who was born in 1947 and lived in a social care institution Gaiļezers in Riga. The applicant died on 19 October 2009. Mr V.B. had been appointed as his legal guardian. In the proceedings before the Court the applicant was represented by Ms T.S.
2. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce.
3. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that he had been unlawfully transferred and placed as of 24 March 2006 in the Īle State Social and Psychological Rehabilitation Centre, located 20 km from Dobele in Īle parish (the “Īle Centre”) in conditions comparable to those of a closed type detention facility. His freedom of movement had been constrained. He also complained under Article 5 § 4 that his release from the Īle Centre had not been ensured.
4. The applicant’s above complaints were communicated to the Government, who informed the Court of the death of the applicant. On 30 April 2014 that information was forwarded at the address the applicant had previously provided to the Court, and to Mr M.V. and Ms T.S., who were requested to send the Registry written comments by 28 May 2014. No heirs or close relatives have come forward to pursue the application on the applicant’s behalf.
THE LAW
5. It has been the Court’s practice to strike applications out of the list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application (see Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 44, 30 March 2009, and see also Brūzītis v. Latvia (striking out) (dec.), no. 15028/04, §§ 45 and 46, 26 August 2014).
6. From the developments set out above it appears that the applicant died in the course of the proceedings. No heirs or close relatives have expressed the wish to pursue the application on his behalf.
7. The Court has had an opportunity to examine complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, similar to those raised in the present case (see Mihailovs v. Latvia, no. 35939/10, §§ 128 et seq., 22 January 2013).
8. In that light and considering the facts at hand, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights which require the continued examination of the case. It considers it appropriate to strike the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy