THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15968/02
by Giedrius KISELIS
against Lithuania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
1 December 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrB.M. Zupančič, President,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrE. Myjer,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 December 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS AND COMPLAINTS
The applicant, Mr Giedrius Kiselis, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1979. He lives in Kaunas.
The applicant was detained in a Vilnius prison following his conviction for robbery. He was released from the prison on 19 October 2004, while the Court was informed thereof only on 1 April 2005 (also see below).
He complained, in particular, about the lawfulness and length of his detention on remand in the context of criminal proceedings for robbery. He invoked Article 5 of the Convention in this respect.
On 21 June 2004 the Court communicated the case to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits of the case
on 13 September 2004.
By letter of the Registry of the Court of 27 September 2004 the applicant was requested to submit, by 8 November 2004, his comments on the Government’s observations.
By letter of the Registry of 12 October 2004 the applicant was reminded about the time-limit for submission of his observations.
In view of the absence of the applicants’ reply, by letter of the Registry of 30 November 2004, sent by registered mail, the applicant was informed that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired
on 8 November 2004, and that no extension of the time-limit had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provided that the Court could strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances led to the conclusion that an applicant did not intend to pursue the application.
A repeated letter of the Registry was sent by registered mail to the applicant on 6 January 2005, reiterating that the time-limit for submission of his observations had expired on 8 November 2005, and that the Court could decide to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. However, no reply was received from the applicant.
On 7 March 2005 the Registry wrote a letter to the respondent Government, requesting them to submit possible proof that the applicant had in fact received the aforementioned letters in the prison.
On 1 April 2005 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had in fact been released from prison on 19 October 2004, but that the aforementioned letters had nonetheless been forwarded from the prison to the applicant’s permanent address in Kaunas.
On 15 April 2005 the Registry sent a further letter, by registered mail, to the applicant’s home address in Kaunas, informing him that the case may be struck out under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, and requesting him to inform, as soon as possible, about his intention to continue the proceedings. Copies of the letters of the Registry of 27 September, 12 October,
30 November 2004, 6 January 2005 and 7 March 2005, as well as copies of the Government’s letters of 13 September 2004 and 1 April 2005 were included with the letter of 15 April 2005.
On 3 May 2005 the Court received confirmation from the Post Office that the letter of 15 April 2005 was duly transmitted to the addressee.
However, the applicant has not replied to any of the above-mentioned letters from the Registry of the Court.
THE LAW
The Court notes that despite of the letters of 27 September, 12 October, 30 November 2004, 7 January 2005 and 15 April 2005, the applicant has not submitted his observations, nor has he made any other submissions to the Court since the communication of the case.
Against this background, the Court considers that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the application. The Court finds no reason to continue the examination of the case. By reference to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the 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.
Vincent BergerBoštjan M. Zupančič
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy