SECOND SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 13332/05 by Raimundas DAUKÅ A against Lithuania

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens , President,

Antonella Mularoni ,

Ireneu Cabral Barreto ,

Rıza Türmen ,

Danutė Jočienė ,

Dragoljub Popović ,

Nona Tsotsoria , judges,

and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 April 2005,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Raimundas Dauk š a , is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Kaunas . The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms Elvyra Baltutyt ė .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was the owner of an incorporated company. He alleged that in 2002 he handed over to GK, a private person, certain goods and requested GK to sell them.

On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant lodged, in the name of his company, an action for damages against GK, alleging a breach of contract.

On 9 June 2004 the Kaunas City District Court ruled in favour of the applicant, awarding 4,151 LTL (about EUR 1,202) in damages. The applicant and GK were present at the hearing.

Upon GK ’ s appeal, on 13 October 2004 the Kaunas Regional Court reversed the first instance judgment, dismissing the applicant ’ s action. The appellate court decided the case in the presence of GK, but without the applicant being present. That decision was final. In the applicant ’ s view, the principle of adversarial proceedings had thereby been breached.

COMPLAINTS

Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complained that the appellate court decided the case in his absence. He alleged that he was not even informed about the date of the appeal hearing, and that GK was furthermore given the opportunity to attend. As a result, the principles of fairness and adversarial proceedings were breached. He further complained that the appellate court had wrongly established the facts of the case and incorrectly interpreted domestic statutes. The applicant also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in this respect.

THE LAW

On 20 November 2006 the President of the Chamber communicated the case to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 13 February 2007.

By letter dated 20 February 2007, the Government ’ s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 3 April 2007.

B y letter dated 13 April 2007 , sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 3 April 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 where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received this letter on 25 April 2007 . However, no response has been received.

By letter dated 23 August 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was warned for the second time. The applicant received this letter on 3 September 2007. No response has been received.

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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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 Tulkens Deputy Registrar President