CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 octobre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s731EBF6B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; font-size:14pt } .s16FF0C53 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s93B30DFA { width:207.46pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 57190/00 by Vincas BAGDONAS and Vidas PACEVIČIUS against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 October 2003 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   P. Kūris ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   B. Zupančič ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve, judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 April 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS AND COMPLAINTS The applicants, Vincas Bagdonas and Vidas Pacevičius, are Lithuanian nationals born, respectively, in 1969 an 1971. They are detained in Pravieniškės prison.   The applicants complained about criminal proceedings concerning illegal trafficking of people. They alleged in particular that they had fallen victims of entrapment by the authorities to commit the offence, in breach of Article   6 of the Convention. On 6 June 2002 the Court communicated the case to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits of the case on 30 September 2002. By letter of the Registry of the Court of 10 October 2002 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants. The applicants were requested to submit, by 21 November 2002, their comments on the Government’s observations. In view of the absence of the applicants’ reply, by letter of the Registry of 3 March 2003 sent by registered mail, the applicants were informed that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 21 November 2002, and that no extension of the time-limit had been requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provided that the Court could strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances led to the conclusion that an applicant did not intend to pursue the application. A repeated letter of the Registry sent by registered mail to the applicants on 3 June 2003, reiterating that the time-limit for submission of their observations had expired on 21 November 2002, and that the Court could decide to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. However, no reply was received from the applicants. THE LAW The Court notes that despite of the letters of 10 October 2002, 3 March 2003 and 3 June 2003 the applicants have not submitted their comments on the Government’s observations, nor have they made any other submissions to the Court since the communication of the case.   Against this background, the Court considers that the applicants have lost interest in pursuing the application. The Court finds no reason to continue the examination of the case. By reference to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the application should be struck out of its list of cases. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President