THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 17121/02
by Stanislav MITSKEVICH
against Lithuania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 December 2003 as a Chamber composed of:
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrR. Türmen,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrsH.S. Greve, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 July 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Stanislav Mitskevich, is a Russian national born in 1929 and living in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Fedorov, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The applicant complained about criminal proceedings against him. He alleged in particular a violation of Articles 3, 6, 7 and 14 of the Convention.
On 13 March 2003 the Court communicated the case to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits of the case
on 4 June 2003.
By letter of the Registry of the Court of 5 June 2003 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative. The applicant was requested to submit, by 17 July 2003, his comments on the Government’s observations.
In view of the absence of the applicants’ reply, by letter of the Registry of 15 October 2003 sent by registered mail, the applicant’s representative was informed that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 17 July 2003, and that no extension of the time-limit had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provided that the Court could strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances led to the conclusion that an applicant did not intend to pursue the application. However, no reply was received to the said letter.
THE LAW
The Court notes that despite of the letters of 5 June and 15 October 2003, the applicant has not submitted any comments on the Government’s observations, nor has he made any other submissions to the Court since the communication of the case.
Against this background, the Court considers that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the application. The Court finds no reason to continue the examination of the case. By reference to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the application should be struck out of its list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy