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. 27116/02 by Algirdas LIAUDEGIS 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 25 October 2000, 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, Mr Algirdas Liaudegis, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1960. The applicant complained about the lawfulness and length of his detention on remand and about his subsequent conviction for theft. The last letter received from the applicant by the Registry of the Court was dated 28 November 2002, indicating that he was being detained in Rasų Prison, Vilnius. The President of the Chamber decided to communicate the case to the respondent Government on 7 September 2005 (Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court). A letter with accompanying documents, informing the applicant about the communication, was sent to him at Rasų Prison on 13 September 2005. That letter was returned to the Registry of the Court as the applicant was no longer in custody. On 29 November 2005 the Registry sent a warning letter, by registered mail, to the applicant’s wife at the applicant’s last known address in Kaunas. In that letter, the applicant was informed that, as he had not specified his new address, the Court might decide to strike the case out of its list of cases in the absence of any further communication from him. That letter was duly delivered by the postal services to the recipient, as attested by the appropriate stamps. However, the letter was also returned to the Registry on the ground that the applicant’s wife had refused to accept the letter on the applicant’s behalf. COMPLAINTS Under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention the applicant complained about the lawfulness and length of his detention on remand and about his subsequent conviction for theft. THE LAW The Court notes that the applicant has sent no communication to the Court since 28 November 2002. Nor has he informed the Court about a change of address after being released from Rasų prison. Furthermore, in view of the unsuccessful efforts by the Registry to deliver the letters of 13 September and 29 November 2005, the Court is unable to establish the applicant’s whereabouts. 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