CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 octobre 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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s1140BE91 { width:196.65pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 13662/09 Aldis GALVIŅŠ against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20   October 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Valeriu Griţco, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Mārtiņš Mits, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 February 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Aldis Galviņš, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1992 and lives in Jelgava. He was represented before the Court by Ms   L.   Cakare, a lawyer practising in Riga. 2.     The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. 3.     The applicant who was charged with arson, alleged that he had been asked by the police to write a confession in the absence of a lawyer and his parents, and that this confession was subsequently used at his trial. 4.     On 5 October 2013 the aforementioned complaint was communicated to the Government under Article 6 §§   1 and 3 (c) of the Convention and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule   54   § 3 of the Rules of Court. 5.     Written submissions were received from the League of Human Rights in Brno, Czech Republic, which had been granted leave by the President to intervene as a third party (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule   44   §   2). 6.     The observations submitted by the Government and the written submissions received from the third party were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letters. 7.     By letter dated 2 June 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application had expired on 12 March 2014 and that no extension of time had been requested. It was also noted that the time-limit to file any written observations in reply to the third-party submissions had expired on 24   March 2014. The applicant’s representative’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. This letter was delivered to the applicant’s representative on 11 June 2014. However, no response has been received. 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 19 November 2015.   Marialiena Tsirli   Valeriu Griţco Deputy Registrar   President