FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23543/07
Stanislav JUDIN
against Estonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 February 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Julia Laffranque, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 May 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Stanislav Judin, is an Estonian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Pärnu. The Estonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kuurberg, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was not given a fair criminal trial.
The applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 23 November 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 15 November 2011 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. This letter was returned to the Registry following the expiry of the fifteen-day storage period in the post office after the postal service had been unable to serve it on the applicant.
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.
André WampachPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy