THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 582/02
by Edvard LOTOVIN
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 November 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Edvard Lotovin, a Belarusian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Naujene (Daugavpils District, Latvia). The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
The applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention in combination with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about differences in calculation of old-age pensions for citizens of Latvia and other residents.
On 14 September 2006 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant's complaints detailed above.
On 1 February 2007 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These were forwarded on 19 April 2007 to the applicant, who was, invited to submit observations in reply by 12 June 2007. On 20 February 2007 the applicant was informed that he had been granted free legal aid and invited to appoint a lawyer for his representation in the proceedings before the Court.
On 14 November 2009 the applicant informed the Court that he wanted to withdraw the application since he could not afford to appoint a representative for himself. In reply, the applicant was reminded that legal aid had been granted to him and was given an opportunity to reconsider his decision. No reply was received by the Court.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
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