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 >> Marija VELICKO v Latvia - 40601/08 [2012] ECHR 209 (24 January 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/209.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 209 |
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40601/08
Marija VEĻIČKO
against
Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Ján
Šikuta, President,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Kristina
Pardalos, judges,
and
Marialena Tsirli, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 August 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Marija Veļičko, is a “non-citizen” of the Republic of Latvia who was born in 1948 and lives in Rīga. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
The applicant complained among other things under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of criminal proceedings.
This complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 26 August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 5 July 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. 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 applicant did not claim this letter in the local post office; it was therefore returned for having been “unclaimed” (the time limit for storage had expired).
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.
Marialena Tsirli Ján Šikuta
Deputy
Registrar President