FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29481/07
by Aigo JÜRGENS
against Estonia
 as a Chamber composed of:
and Stephen Phillips, 
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 June 2007,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Aigo Jürgens, is an Estonian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Lihula. He was in detention in Tallinn Prison at the time he lodged his application with the Court. The Estonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kuurberg, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention about the length of his detention and that his request for release had not been considered by the court.
The applicant was informed that notice of the application was given to the Government by a letter dated 26 January 2009. By the same letter he was requested, by 23 February 2009, to appoint an advocate. Since he did not reply to this letter, he was again requested, by a letter dated 30 March 2009, to appoint an advocate by 27 April 2009. As he did not reply to this letter either, the request to appoint an advocate, this time by 29 June 2009, was renewed. 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 latter letter was sent by registered post on 27 May 2009. However, no response has been received.
On 19 October 2009 the Government provided the Court, at its request, with copies of the pertinent parts of the register of letters of Tallinn Prison and Tartu Prison. According to the information provided, the letter of 26 January 2009 had been forwarded by the Tallinn Prison, by registered post, to the applicant’s home address, as he had been released by that time. The letters of 30 March 2009 and 27 May 2009 had been forwarded by the Tallinn Prison to Tartu Prison, where they had been delivered to the applicant, who had been taken into custody in the meantime.
THE LAW
Under Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court, applicants have a duty to keep the Court informed of any change of address. Pursuant to Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 of the Rules, following notification of the application to the respondent Contracting Party, applicants should be represented by an advocate authorised to practise in any of the Contracting States and resident in the territory of any of them. In view of this and of the developments outlined above, the Court finds that, in the circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer intending to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention and Rule 44E of the Rules. As it sees no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights which require the continued examination of the case, the Court considers it appropriate to strike the application out of its list of cases.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Stephen Phillips	 Peer Lorenzen
	Deputy Registrar	President