SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19248/02
by Rymantas Vytautas VĖJELIS
against Lithuania
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting
on 28 February 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrR. Türmen,
MrV. Butkevych,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 April 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS AND COMPLAINTS
The applicant, Mr Rymantas Vytautas Vėjelis, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Vilnius.
He complained, in particular, about a breach of his property rights within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
On 10 May 2005 the President of the Chamber communicated this aspect of 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 5 September 2005.
By a letter from the Registry of the Court of 14 September 2005, the applicant was requested to submit, by 26 October 2005, his comments on the Government’s observations.
In view of the absence of any reply, the Registry sent another letter dated 8 November 2005 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 an applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
THE LAW
The Court notes that despite the Registry’s letters of 14 September and 8 November 2005, 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. Dollé J.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy