FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38686/09
by Kersti KAASIK
against Estonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 November 2011 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 11 July 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Kersti Kaasik, is an Estonian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Uuemõisa. 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 and Article 13 of the Convention about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect. She further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she was unable to obtain reimbursement of her legal expenses despite her acquittal.
The applicant’s complaints concerning the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect were 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 her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 16 May 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 15 April 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. The applicant received this letter on 30 May 2011. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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