THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18705/02
by Pāvels BERNĀNS
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 April 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Pāvels Bernāns, a Latvian national who was born in 1979. His current residence is unknown. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
The applicant's complaints concerning the conditions of detention in Brasa and Grīva Prisons, an effective remedy in that regard, and right to respect for his correspondence were communicated to the Government. The applicant was invited to appoint a legal representative. No reply was received to the Registry's letter.
By letter dated 10 November 2009, sent by registered post to the applicant's last known address (in Ireland), the applicant was notified that the period allowed for designating a representative had expired on 19 October 2009 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 of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The letter was returned as undeliverable. Identical letters were then sent by registered post to the applicant's and his parents' addresses on 6 and 7 January 2010. On 13 January 2010 the applicant's mother signed as having received the Court's letter. No reply was received. The letters sent to the applicant's parents' address on 3 and 18 March 2010 were returned to the Court as unclaimed after the storage time had expired.
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.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy