CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 avril 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s6667B4BF { width:213.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 40757/09 Sergejs KAULAKANS against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   April 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Päivi Hirvelä, President,   Ledi Bianku,   Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 September 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Sergejs Kaulakans, is a “permanently resident non-citizen” of the Republic of Latvia, who was born in 1979. 2.     The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. 3.     The applicant complained in substance under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) of the Convention about criminal proceedings. In particular, he complained that the appeal panel had continued the proceedings without having secured the attendance at the appeal hearing of the injured parties A.R. and J.B. and the main witness N.S., even though the appeal panel had previously found their attendance necessary. 4.     The above applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations. 5.     By letters dated 27 March 2014 and 8 July 2014 the Registry requested that the applicant designate a representative for the proceedings before the Court. No reply was received to the first letter, and the second letter which had been sent by registered post was returned as “unclaimed”. 6.     By a letter dated 5 February 2015, sent by registered post, the applicant was asked to submit by 5 March 2015 the information referred to in the aforementioned letters. 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. The Registry’s letter was returned as “unclaimed”. 7.     The aforementioned letters were sent to the applicant’s home in Alūksne, which he had indicated as his address for correspondence. It however appears that the applicant did not inform the Court about the change of his address for correspondence. THE LAW 8.     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. 9.     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 21 May 2015.   Fatoş Aracı   Päivi Hirvelä Deputy Registrar   President