THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 23034/03 by Juris ARKLIÅ…Å against Latvia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr B.M. Zupančič , President , Mr C. Bîrsan , Mrs E. Fura-Sandström , Mrs A. Gyulumyan , Mr E. Myjer , Mrs I. Ziemele , Mrs I. Berro-Lefèvre, judges , and Mr S. Quesada , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 July 2003,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Juris Arkliņš , was a Latvian national who was born in 1942 and lived in Smiltene . The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine .

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

On 27 February 2001 the applicant was found guilty of causing a serious traffic accident while driving a car when drunk. He was sentenced, taking into account his previous convictions for drink- driving, to three years ’ suspended imprisonment and deprivation of his driver ’ s licence for three years.

On 1 June 2001 the applicant was found guilty of driving a car and thus acting contrary to the adjudged on 27 February 2001 . He was sentenced to t hree years ’ imprisonment , which h e started to serve in the Olaine Prison which has an open regime.

On 26 March 2002 the applicant was assigned the status of a person with a third degree of disability.

In the night from 24 to 25 December 2002 the applicant, after having consumed alcohol, left his cell and went to visit female inmates . This was contrary to the prison rules and in the morning of 25 December 2002 the applicant was subjected to an alcohol test, which indicated a certain level of alcohol in the applicant ’ s blood . It was decided to punish the applicant for consu mption of alcohol by placing him in the disciplinary isolation cell of the prison for ten days. According to the applicant, when he refused to sign this decision, stating that he did not drink alcohol, the guards allegedly hit him on the head several times with a stick and, when the applicant fell on the floor, kicked him again several times. According to the information provided by the Government, the applicant stumbled over a doorstep while being under the influence of alcohol .

According to the applicant, on 26 December 2002 his state of health deteriorated. A nurse visited the applicant and gave him a pain-killer. The applicant ’ s request to see a doctor was allegedly refused . The applicant spent ten days in the isolation ward without any medical treatment and his state of health deteriorated considerably.

According to the Government ’ s submissions, the applicant did not make any complaints to the medical personnel of the prison, carrying out the medical inspection on 27 and 28 December 2002. Neither did the applicant complain on 2 and on 3 J anuary 2003, upon his release f r om the disciplinary isolation cell.

On 7 January, 13 and 17 February 2003 the applicant complained to the Specialised Public Prosecutor ’ s Office ( Specializētā vairāku nozaru prokuratūra ) and the Latvian Prison Administration ( Ieslodzījumu vietu pārvalde ) regarding the events of 25 and 26 December 2002.

On 7 January 2003, on his complaint, the applicant was examined by the Head of the Medical Section of the prison. No signs of the alleged ill-treatment were diagnosed.

On 18 February 2003 the applicant ’ s state of health deteriorated sharply, however, he refused a transfer to the Latvian Prison Hospital .

On 19 February 2003, without permission of the prison authorities, the applicant ’ s son took him to the P. Stradiņa Hospital where his backbone was X-rayed. Deformation of his vertebra and cerebral infarct were detected, which, according to the Government ’ s submissions, had been diagnosed already in September 2000. The applicant was staying in the P.Stradiņa Hospital from 19 February to 4 March 2003 where, inter alia, acute infarct, vertebral osteon-pyrosis , paralyses and co-ordination and balance dysfunctions were diagnosed. Medical rehabilitation was proposed. On 20 March 2003 a general practitioner made a similar diagnosis , stating that the applicant had been assigned the status of a person with a second degree of disability.

On 24 February 2003 the Prison Administration decided not to initiate a criminal case against the Olaine prison guards. According to the facts stated in the decision, two of the applicant ’ s cell-mates, who lodged complaints similar to the applicant ’ s complaint, did not have any bodily injuries. The applicant had one bruise on his back. The ap plicant was informed that he could appeal against this decision to the Specialised Public Prosecutor ’ s Office , which he did not do .

On 8 April 2003, by a decision of the Administration of the Olaine Prison, the applicant was transferred to the Å Ä·irotava Prison which has a partly closed regime . The transfer was punishment for infringements of the regime in the Olaine Prison.

On 17 September 2003 the Inspection for Quality Control over Health-care and Work Capacity Expertise ( Medicīniskās aprūpes un darbspējas ekspertīzes kvalitātes kontroles inspekcija ) asserted that on 18 February 2003 the applicant ’ s state of health deteriorated sharply. However, he refused the transfer to the Latvian Prison Hospital and on 19 February 2003 went to the P.Stradiņa Hospital for medical treatment. The Olaine prison doctor testified that the applicant received adequate medical treatment after he left the P.Stradiņa Hospital and returned to the prison. The applicant ’ s stay in the hospital was considered as an infringement of the prison regime and as a punishment he was transferred to the Šķirotava prison, where he received medical treatment. It was asserted that the doctors of the Šķirotava prison had provided the applicant with adequate medical treatment.

On 13 November 2003 the Inspection asserted that the applicant received adequate medical treatment in the Šķirotava prison. The applicant was informed that the Inspection has requested the Specialised Public Prosecutor ’ s Office to examine his allegations that he did not receive medical treatment after the events of 25 December 2002. It appears that the Prosecutor did not provide any answer in this respect.

On 26 February 2004 the appl icant was released on probation. In April 2006 he sent his last letter informing the Court on the latest developments concerning his case.

The case was communicated by the Court to the Government on 29 September 2006.

On 14 April 2007 the Government ’ s Agent informed the Court that the applicant has died. None of the applicant ’ s relatives has contacted the Court and expressed the wish to pursue the application.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that on 25 December 2002 he has been ill-treated and was not provided with adequate medical treatment afterwards. As a result his state of health deteriorated considerably.

2. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was deprived of access to court in respect of his complaints under Article 3.

3. The applicant complains under Articles 7 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about his transfer from the Olaine Prison to the Šķirotava Prison.

THE LAW

The Court observes that the applicant died on 7 September 2006 and that the letter sent to the address indicated by the applicant had been returned and that none of the applicant ’ s relatives or heirs has contacted the Court and expressed the wish to pursue the application.

In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine , which would require the examination of the application by virtue of that Article. It therefore, decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Santiago Quesada Boštjan M. Zupančič Registrar President