FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 58092/13 Mikus VĪTOLS against Latvia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting on 5 January 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Khanlar Hajiyev , President, Faris Vehabović , Carlo Ranzoni , judges, and Milan Blaško , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 September 2013 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Mikus VÄ«tols , is a Latvian national, who was born in 1988 and lives in Daugavpils .

The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs K. L īce .

The applicant ’ s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the length of his pre-trial detention was 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 any claims for just satisfaction . No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

By letter dated 28 August 2015 , sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of any claims for just satisfaction had expired on 4 August 2015 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ’ s at tention 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. The applicant received this letter on 7 September 2015. 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, w ithin 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.

Done in English and notified in writing on 28 January 2016 .

Milan BlaÅ¡ko Khanlar Hajiyev              Deputy Registrar President