THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14042/02
by Boriss KLOPCOVS and Others
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 February 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 Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 July 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Boriss Klopcovs, a Latvian national born in 1951 (“the first applicant”), Mr Roberts Žerebkovs, a Latvian national born in 1970 (“the second applicant”), and Mr Andrejs Ostelis, who did not provide any information on his year of birth and nationality (“the third applicant”). The Latvian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
The applicants' complaints concerning the conditions of detention, the right of correspondence, the alleged lack of an effective remedy in those respects, as well as concerning the alleged hindrance of the first applicant's right to submit an application to the Court were communicated on 5 April 2007 to the Government, who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. In the time allotted, no observations in reply were received from any of the applicants.
On 17 February 2009 the President of the Chamber decided to communicate an additional question to the Government with regard to the first applicant's allegations of hindrance by the State of the effective exercise of his right of petition, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention. The Government submitted their observations concerning that question. The first applicant failed to submit his observations in response within the time allotted for that purpose.
PROCEDURE
At the time of lodging of the application, all three applicants were represented before the Court by the first applicant.
On the same day when notice of the applicants' complaints under Articles 3, 8, 13 and 34 of the Convention was given to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, the first applicant was required to appoint a representative in accordance with Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 of the Rules of Court, which provides, in so far as relevant:
“... Following notification of the application to the respondent Contracting Party under Rule 54 § 2 (b), the applicant should be represented in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Rule, unless the President of the Chamber decides otherwise.
... 4. (a) The representative acting on behalf of the applicant pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Rule shall be an advocate authorised to practise in any of the Contracting Parties and resident in the territory of one of them, or any other person approved by the President of the Chamber.”
On 17 April and 8 May 2007, the first applicant wrote to the Court, seeking leave to present his own case under Rule 36 § 3 of the Rules of Court. The President of the Chamber decided not to grant him leave. Accordingly, all three applicants were requested to appoint representatives by 1 August 2007.
On 17 July 2007 the first applicant wrote to the Court, once again seeking leave to present his own case. Taking into account the earlier decision taken by the President of the Chamber, that request was denied.
On 28 July 2007 the third applicant requested legal aid and was informed of the requirements for obtaining legal aid. On 1 October 2007 a request for legal aid was made also by the first applicant. Within the time-limit set by the Court, no reply in this regard was received from either of the applicants.
On 25 February 2009, when the additional question concerning Article 34 of the Convention was communicated to the Government, all three applicants were again requested to appoint representatives. They were also informed of the risk of their application being struck out of the list of cases for lack of proper representation.
In response, on 4 March 2009 the second applicant requested legal aid and was informed of the relevant requirements. To date he has failed to submit documents that would allow the Court to establish whether those requirements have been fulfilled.
On 23 April 2009 the time granted to the first applicant for appointing a representative was extended. Subsequently, by letters of 11 and 12 May 2009, the first applicant informed the Court of his opinion that he was the best qualified person to represent his own interests. In response, he was reminded that the President of the Chamber had decided that he needed to be represented in accordance with Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 of the Rules of Court.
In subsequent letters the first applicant continued to insist that he was unwilling and/or unable to appoint a representative.
On 3 September 2009 the first applicant submitted a new request for legal aid. In response, he was requested to submit the required documents by 8 October 2009. That time-limit was subsequently extended until 25 October 2009. The first applicant did not submit any of the requested documents. Instead, on 26 October 2009 he once again wrote to the Court, insisting that he was unable to appoint a representative.
THE LAW
The Court recalls that the President of the Chamber refused to grant leave to the first applicant to represent himself. Despite repeated requests and reminders during more than two and a half years, none of the applicants has appointed a representative, notwithstanding the possibility of legal aid being granted and notwithstanding repeated warnings that their application might be struck out of the Court's list of cases.
According to the Court's practice, failure to comply with the requirement of proper legal representation may result in the discontinuation of the proceedings (see Grimaylo v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 69364/01, 7 February 2006; Ivanchenko v. Ukraine (dec.) no. 60726/00, 7 February 2006; and Akulov v. Russia (dec.), no. 74688/01, 8 March 2007). In the present case the Court sees no reason to deviate from that practice.
For these reasons, the Court finds it established that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c) 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. Consequently, the Court considers the present application should be struck out of its list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stanley NaismithJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy