FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23792/07
by Nahum Yaron KAHANA
against Estonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 May 2007,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Nahum Yaron Kahana, is an Israeli national who was born in 1962. He is serving a sentence in Tallinn Prison. The Estonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kuurberg, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his detention and under Article 6 § 1 that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair.
After notice of the application was given to the Government, by a letter dated 12 May 2009, their observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit, by 23 June 2009, observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction. As he did not reply to this letter, by a further letter, dated 3 July 2009 and sent by registered post, his attention was drawn to the fact that the time-limit for submitting observations and claims had expired, and that no extension of the deadline had been requested. His attention was also 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. However, no response has been received.
On 19 October 2009 the Government provided the Court, at its request, with copies of the pertinent parts of the register of letters of Tallinn Prison. According to the information provided, the letters sent by the Court’s Registry had been delivered to 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.
Stephen PhillipsPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy