THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19885/02
by Aleksandrs LEPEŅINS
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 May 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Aleksandrs Lepeņins, a Latvian national who was born in 1968 and at the time of submission of his application to the Court had been detained on remand in a prison in Rīga since 1 March 2001. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
It appears that on 4 February 2010 the applicant was released on parole.
The applicant submitted numerous complaints under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4, Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d), Articles 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17 and 34 of the Convention, Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. Finally, he also complained under Article 3 to Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
The applicant's complaints concerning the length and the judicial review of his pre-trial detention, the length of criminal proceedings against him and effective domestic remedies in that regard and his right to vote were communicated to the respondent Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaints. 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 letters dated 23 October 2009 and 29 April 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 5 May 2008 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 received the second letter on 5 May 2010. However, no response has been received.
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 QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy