FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43134/09
Viktors CVEČKOVSKIS
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 March 2015 as a Committee composed of:
George Nicolaou, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 July 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Viktors Cvečkovskis, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Jelgava. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Laiviņš, a lawyer practising in Riga.
2. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce.
3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention that despite his repeated requests in the first instance court and in the appeal court, an important witness for the applicant, A.G., was not summoned and examined in court. Witness A.G. could attest to the applicant’s innocence.
4. The above applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government, who on 20 May 2014 submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.
5. On 22 May 2014 the observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit by 3 July 2014 observations on behalf of the applicant, together with any claims for just satisfaction. No response was received.
6. On 30 September 2014 the applicant’s representative was advised by registered mail at his address provided to the Court and at the address obtained by the Registry on the internet site of the Latvian Council of Sworn Advocates (Latvijas Zvērinātu advokātu padome) () that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 3 July 2014 and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention in 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.
7. The Registry’s letter sent to the first address was returned as “unclaimed”. The Registry’s letter sent to the second address was received, as it appears, by the applicant’s representative on 6 October 2014. No response however has been received.
THE LAW
8. 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.
9. 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 2 April 2015.
Fatoş AracıGeorge Nicolaou
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy