European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Aldis ZUTIS v Latvia - 24395/06 [2011] ECHR 1860 (11 October 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1860.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1860
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
24395/06
by Aldis ZUTIS
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 October 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 22 May 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aldis Zutis, is a Latvian national who was born in 1971. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.
By letter dated 17 June 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for appointing a representative had expired. On 18 July 2011 the applicant was invited, by letter sent by registered post, to respond to the written observations of the Government.
On 19 July 2011 and 5 August 2011 respectively, both letters were returned to the Court with a notice that the addressee was unknown. The Court has no information about the applicant’s whereabouts.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, and taking into account that the applicant has failed to inform the Court about the change of his mailing address, he 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 Tsirli Ján Šikuta
Deputy
Registrar President