CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 31 janvier 2006

.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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .s49BC847 { width:203.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 22193/02 by Meilutė STRAZDIENĖ against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 31 January 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström ,   Ms   D. Jočienė ,   Mr   D. Popović, judges , and Mr S. Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 May 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Meilutė Strazdienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Vilnius. She complained, in particular, about the unfairness of legal proceedings concerning a road traffic accident.   On 11 July 2005 the President of the Chamber communicated this aspect of the case to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 3 October 2005. By letter of the Registry of the Court of 12 October 2005 the applicant was requested to submit, by 23 November 2005, her comments on the Government’s observations. In view of the absence of the applicant’s reply, by letter of the Registry of 21 December 2005, sent by registered mail, the applicant was informed that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 23 November 2005, and that no extension of the time-limit had been requested. The applicant’s 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. COMPLAINTS   The applicant complained, in particular, about the unfairness of legal proceedings concerning a road traffic accident. She alleged a breach of Article 6 of the Convention.   THE LAW The Court notes that despite the Registry’s letters of 12 October and 21   December 2005, the applicant has not submitted her comments as to the Government’s observations. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the case, as understood by Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, and that there are no general issues concerning the respect for human rights warranting the continued examination of the application. The Court concludes that the procedure under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be terminated, and 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.     S. Naismith   J.-P. C osta Deputy Registrar   President