NAZARENKO v. LATVIA
Doc ref: 34088/07 • ECHR ID: 001-113968
Document date: September 11, 2012
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 34088/07 Aleksandrs NAZARENKO against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina Gyulumyan , President, Ineta Ziemele , Kristina Pardalos , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 May 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Aleksandrs Nazarenko, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Rīga .
The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings.
The applicant ’ s complaint under Article 6 and the question as to the existence of effective domestic remedies in this respect were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.
By letter dated 21 February 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submitting the name of his representative expired on 14 December 2011 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 of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. No response from the applicant 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, 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 T sirli Alvina Gyulumyan Deputy Registrar President
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
