CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 juillet 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5E34492 { width:18.86pt; display:inline-block } .sBF09941 { width:170.4pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 12149/02 by Sergejs BJATECS against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 July 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   B.M. Zupančič , President ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström ,   Mrs   A. Gyulumyan ,   Mr   E. Myjer ,   Mrs   I. Ziemele ,   Mrs   I. Berro-Lefèvre, judges , and Mr S. Quesada , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 March 2002, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Sergejs Bjatecs, was a permanent resident (non-citizen) of Latvia who was born in 1962 and lived in Liepāja. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 18 March 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated manslaughter. On the same day a criminal case against him was initiated. On 18 March 1997 the pre-trial investigation of the case was completed and it was transferred to the Riga Regional Court for adjudication. Twice, on 13 July 1997 and 18 August 1998 the Riga Regional Court decided to send the case back to the prosecutor’s office in charge of the applicant’s case for additional investigation On three occasions the Riga Regional Court adjourned the hearings. Thus, on 19 July 2000 the hearing was adjourned because of the absence of legal counsel of the applicant’s co-accused, on 2 October 2000 – because of the illness of the co-accused and on 29 June 2001 – because of absence of several witnesses. On 6 August 2001 the Riga Regional Court found the applicant guilty of the crime and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. On 15 October 2001 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court decided to accept the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the first instance court for examination and scheduled a hearing for 6   November   2001, which apparently was adjourned. On 31 January 2002 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 6 August 2001. The applicant did not appeal against this decision to the Senate of the Supreme Court. On 18 June 2003 the Government’s Agent informed the Court that the applicant has died. None of the applicant’s relatives has contacted the Court and expressed the wish to pursue the application. COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complained without invoking any Article of the Convention that he was deprived of a fair trial within a reasonable time. 2.     The applicant further complained, without invoking any Article of the Convention, that he was subjected to ill-treatment during the pre-trial investigation and deprived of medical treatment during his imprisonment. 3.     The applicant finally complained that for five years he was deprived of a possibility to visit his religious counsellor. He did not invoke any Article of the Convention in this respect. THE LAW The Court observes that the applicant died on 16 February 2004 and that the letter sent to the address indicated by the applicant had been returned and that none of the applicant’s relatives or heirs has contacted the Court and expressed the wish to pursue the application. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article   37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine , which would require the examination of the application by virtue of that Article. It therefore, decides 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.   Santiago Quesada   Boštjan M. Zupančič   Registrar   President