SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15259/04
by Jurijus PROKOPOVIČIUS
against Lithuania
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting
on 25 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jurijus Prokopovičius, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Alytus. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Elvyra Baltutytė.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was a director of a State-run company.
On 26 June 2003 he was convicted of embezzlement and false reporting of crime (Articles 184 § 2 and 236 § 1 of the Criminal Code as then in force). A prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer were present at the hearing.
On 4 September 2003 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the judgment in the absence of the applicant, while the prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer were present.
The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, complaining that not all the circumstances of the case had been examined and that certain witnesses had not been questioned. The applicant also requested to be summoned to the examination of his cassation appeal.
On 2 December 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the lower decisions, having found no procedural irregularities. Whereas the prosecutor took part in the hearing, neither the applicant nor his lawyer were present.
On 22 June 2006 the President of the Chamber 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 13 October 2006.
By a letter from the Registry of the Court on 20 October 2006, the applicant was requested to submit, by 1 December 2006, his comments on the Government’s observations.
In view of the absence of any reply, the Registry sent another letter dated 12 March 2007 by registered mail, informing the applicant that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired, and that no extension of the time-limit had been requested. The applicant was warned, under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, that the Court may strike a case out of its list where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
The repeated warning was sent, by registered mail, on 23 May 2007.
COMPLAINTS
1. Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complained that the proceedings had been unfair on account of the fact that the courts had examined the case in his absence, and that they had failed to examine all the relevant circumstances and hear certain witnesses.
2. The applicant further complained under Article 6 that the Supreme Court had examined the case in the absence of his lawyer, who had not received summons to the hearing.
THE LAW
The Court notes that, despite the Registry’s letters of 20 October 2006, 12 March 2007 and 23 May 2007, the applicant has not submitted his comments on the Government’s observations; nor has he made any other submissions to the Court since the communication of the case.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 examination of this application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy