THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37062/05
Edmijs LIEKNIŅŠ
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Ineta Ziemele,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 September 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Edmijs Liekniņš, is a Latvian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Laidze parish. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
The applicant complained among other things under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention about the domestic court’s statement of 19 August 2005.
This complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 26 August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 4 July 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. 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 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.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy