THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 939/02
by Angelė KUPŠIENĖ
against Lithuania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 June 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrsA. Gyulumyan, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 July 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mrs Angelė Kupšienė, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Klaipėda.
The applicant complained about the length of civil proceedings. She alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
On 19 March 2003 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
15 December 2003.
By letter of the Registry of the Court of 19 December 2003 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant. The applicant was requested to submit, by 13 February 2004, her comments on the Government’s observations.
In view of the absence of the applicants’ reply, by letter of the Registry of 2 March 2004 sent by registered mail, the applicant was informed that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 13 February 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. However, no reply was received to the said letter.
THE LAW
The Court notes that despite of the letters of 19 December 2003 and
2 March 2004, the applicant has not submitted any comments on the Government’s observations, nor has she 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 BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy