THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22722/06
by Andžejs SELETICKIS
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 June 2011 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 29 May 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Andžejs Seletickis, is a Latvian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Jelgava. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
2. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by Valmiera Prison officers on 24 July 2005. He also brought numerous complaints under Article 6 of the Convention
3. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. They were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations.
4. By letters dated 12 January and 18 March 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 24 November 2010 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.
5. According to the notices of delivery, on 24 January and 2 April 2011 the Court’s letters were delivered to the Jelgava prison, however no response has been received from the applicant.
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