by Laimonas PETRAITIS
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting
on 23 February 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 July 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Laimonas Petraitis, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Klaipėda. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms E. Baltutytė.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the alleged unfairness and excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him.
The case was communicated to the respondent Government, whose observations were sent to the applicant for comment by 12 May 2009.
letter dated 28 September 2009, sent by registered post, the
applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his
observations had expired 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. However, the letter was returned to the Court
on 20 November 2009, without any indication as to why it did not reach the applicant. Another warning letter was sent to the applicant on 4 December 2009, but it was also returned to the Court, as the applicant failed to collect the letter from the post office. The applicant has not made any further contact with the Registry.
The Court considers that, in the light of the foregoing 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.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Deputy Registrar President