THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4058/02
by Viktors VORONCOVS
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 June 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Viktors Voroncovs, a Latvian national who was born in 1962. His current residence is unknown. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
The applicant's complaints concerning the length of his pre-trial detention, the alleged impossibility to receive compensation in that regard, the overall length of criminal proceedings against him and concerning an alleged violation of the ne bis in idem principle were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was, invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry's letter.
By letter dated 29 October 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the his observations had expired on 4 September 2007 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. That letter was returned to the Court as unclaimed. Another letter, also containing a warning about a possible strike-out, was sent to the applicant on 10 January 2008. However, no response has been received.
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.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy