BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Zhan GLUKMANN v Estonia - 45659/08 [2009] ECHR 1257 (7 July 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1257.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1257 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
Application no.
45659/08
by Zhan GLÜKMANN
against Estonia
lodged on 17
September 2008
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 July 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Rait
Maruste,
Mark
Villiger,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
and
Stephen Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 September 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Zhan Glükmann, is an Estonian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Tallinn. He was represented before the Court by Ms K. Namm, a lawyer practising in Rakvere.
The applicant complained under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of his detention and the length of the criminal proceedings.
On an unspecified date in 2009 the applicant and the prosecution reached a plea bargain agreement according to which the applicant was sentenced to seven years’ and six months’ imprisonment.
On 17 June 2009 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant wanted to withdraw the application since he had concluded a plea bargain agreement in the criminal case against him.
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.
Stephen Phillips Peer Lorenzen
Deputy Registrar President