[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Danute VASILIAUSKIENE v Lithuania - 36065/06 [2009] ECHR 391 (03 February 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/391.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 391

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 36065/06
by Danutė VASILIAUSKIENĖ
against Lithuania

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting
on 3 February 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 July 2006,

Having regard to the information submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Danutė Vasiliauskienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Šilutė. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms Elvyra Baltutytė.

The applicant’s family were evicted from their home, which had been sold by auction to a third party, and ended up sleeping in a garage. Subsequently, after notification of the case to the Government, they were re-housed by a local authority in an apartment. The applicant originally complained to the Court of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. However, she did not reply to the invitation to submit comments on the observations of the Government, despite correspondence from the Registry, sent by registered post, warning her that her case might be struck out under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention should the circumstances lead the Court to conclude that an applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received the last of these letters on 12 June 2008, but did not respond.

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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.

Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President