THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36575/03
by Aleksandrs KUROČKINS
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 December 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 November 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Aleksandrs Kuročkins, a Latvian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Rīga. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Reine.
The applicant submitted numerous complaints under Article 5 § 3, Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of his criminal proceedings was communicated to the Government on 24 September 2009, who expressed their wish to reach a friendly settlement in the case.
By letter dated 4 November 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was informed of the Government’s position and both parties were invited to accept the terms of the friendly settlement proposal. The applicant received this letter on 9 November 2009.
By letter dated 22 January 2010 the applicant was informed that the Government had accepted the terms of the friendly settlement proposal and the applicant was requested to formally confirm his acceptance of that proposal by 5 February 2010.
By letter dated 21 September 2010, sent by registered post and accompanied by an unofficial translation of its contents, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his position regarding the friendly settlement had expired on 5 February 2010. A note was also made of the fact that the applicant had not replied to the Court’s letters of 24 September, 4 November 2009 and 22 January 2010. 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 did not claim this letter in the local post office, it was therefore returned for having been “unclaimed” (the time-limit for its storage had expired).
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.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy