FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 53126/11 M.K . against Latvia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 14 October 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Päivi Hirvelä , President, George Nicolaou , Faris Vehabović , judges,

and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 August 2011 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1 . The applicant, Mr M. K . , born in 1983, is a Russian national . It was decided to grant the applicant ex officio anonymity under Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court .

2. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) wer e represented by their Agent, M s. K. Līce .

3. Further to the notification under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (a), the Russian Government did not wish to exercise their right to intervene in the present case.

4. The applicant , referring to Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention, complained about the failure of the domestic authorities to react promptly and adequately to the danger to him and his family due to the applicant testifying in criminal proceedings for organised crime of drug trafficking. He claimed that his and his family ’ s personal information had been accessible to a lawyer of the defendant in those proceedings. The applicant had feared for his and his family ’ s life and health.

5. Further, the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of criminal proceedings on the charges of appropriation and computer fraud pending against him for more than seven years. The domestic authorities had refused to terminate them on account of their excessive duration.

6. The above applicant ’ s complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The Government also submitted a copy of the decision of the Riga City Latgale District Court ( Rīgas pilsētas Latgales priekšpilsētas tiesa ) dated 3 December 2013, adopted in a criminal trial against the applicant. According to that decision the applicant had repeatedly failed to appear at a court hearing and had not informed the District Court of the reasons thereof. It had been decided that a wanted notice be issued for him.

7. By a letter dated 21 May 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant was informed that the Government had submitted their observations which would be sent to the applicant ’ s representative after his/her nomination. It was noted that no reply had been received from the applicant to the Registry ’ s earlier letter of 8 January 2014 requesting the applicant to nominate a representative. The applicant was requested to inform the Registry before 4 June 2014 whether he wished to maintain his application. His attention was drawn that a failure to reply may lead the Court to conclude that he was no longer interested in pursuing his application and to strike it out of its list of cases. The Registry ’ s letter was returned with the applicant being “unknown” at the postal address provided.

THE LAW

8. In that context, the Court recalls that, pursuant to Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court, “applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application”. Under that Rule, it is incumbent on the applicant to provide at least a minimum of information, namely his postal address, enabling the Court to conduct correspondence with him and to proceed with his petition.

9. In the present case the applicant failed to inform the Court of the change of his postal address or to indicate any provisional address at which communication with him can be effected.

10. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant no longer wishes 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.

11. 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.

FatoÅŸ Aracı Päivi Hirvelä              Deputy Registrar President