FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39676/05
Andrejs KUZMANS and Dace JANKAUSKA
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 October 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
George Nicolaou,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 November 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicants, Mr Andrejs Kuzmans and Ms Dace Jankauska, are Latvian nationals, who were born in 1970 and 1976 and live in Berlin and Ventspils, respectively.
2. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce.
3. The first applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been held in inhuman conditions in short-term detention facilities in Ventspils and that the compensation of 8,000 Latvian lati (LVL) (roughly corresponding to 11,429 euros (EUR)) awarded by the domestic courts in that regard had been insufficient. He also complained under Article 6 about the length of administrative proceedings.
4. He raised further complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 34 of the Convention.
5. Both applicants complained under Article 8 about restrictions on visits, correspondence and telephone communication between them during the first applicant’s detention.
6. The first applicant’s complaints under Articles 3, 8 and, in substance, under Article 13, regarding the conditions of detention and the restrictions on visits, correspondence and phone communication in short-term detention facilities in Ventspils, and under Article 6, regarding the length of administrative proceedings, were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.
7. By a letter dated 19 April 2013 the Registry requested that the first applicant designate a representative for the proceedings before the Court. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
8. By a letter dated 18 June 2013, sent by registered post, and received by the first applicant on 26 June 2013, he was again asked to designate a representative by 16 July 2013. The first applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention in that if he failed to do so, the Court may decide that he was no longer interested to pursue his application and that it may be struck out from the list of cases pending before the Court. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
9. By a further letter dated 28 August 2013, sent by registered post, the Registry informed the first applicant that the period allowed for submission of a completed power of attorney had expired on 16 July 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The first applicant’s attention was again drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Registry’s letter was returned as “unclaimed”.
THE LAW
10. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the first applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his complaints, 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.
11. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as the first applicant is concerned.
12. With regard to the complaint under Article 8 raised by the second applicant, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as the first applicant is concerned;
Declares the application inadmissible in so far as the second applicant is concerned.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy