CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 octobre 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 } .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 } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s64C69EF9 { width:181.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 12454/05 by Ülari METSAVEER against Estonia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9   October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger ,   Mr   M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 March 2005, 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 partial decision of 26 June 2006, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Ülari Metsaveer, is an Estonian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Sindi. He is represented before the Court by Mr   P.   Tartu, a lawyer practising in Pärnu. The Estonian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms M.   Hion, Director of the Human Rights Division of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was kept in preliminary detention from 14 May 2003 to 20   May 2005 on suspicion of several offences including those involving drugs. His detention was authorised and prolonged on several occasions by the Saare County Court ( maakohus ). For most of the time he was kept in the Pärnu Prison. However, he spent several short periods in the Kuressaare Police Department Arrest House ( politseijaoskonna arestimaja ), where he was escorted from the Pärnu Prison in connection with his trial in the Saare County Court in Kuressaare. He spent a total of 119 days in the arrest house. The applicant lodged a complaint concerning the conditions of detention in the Kuressaare arrest house with the Pärnu Administrative Court ( halduskohus ) which, by a judgment of 26 May 2006, awarded him 8,000   Estonian kroons (EEK; corresponding to approximately 510 euros (EUR)) in non-pecuniary damages for degrading treatment. By a judgment of 25 January 2007, the Tallinn Court of Appeal ( ringkonnakohus ) increased the award in non-pecuniary damages to EEK   15,000 (EUR 960). COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his detention. He further complained that the conditions of his detention amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. THE LAW By a decision of 26 June 2006, the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and communicated the complaints concerning the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the conditions of his detention to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits of the case on 25 September 2006. By letter dated 4 October 2006 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 15   November 2006. On the latter date, the applicant’s representative requested the extension of the time-limit for submitting the observations. By letter of 28 November 2006 he was informed that the President of the Chamber had agreed to extend the time-limit until 10   December 2006. By letter dated 14 March 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the extension of time granted for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired. The applicant’s representative’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. By letter of 9 April 2007 the Government submitted additional information concerning the domestic proceedings in the present case. They considered that the applicant did not intend to pursue his application and invited the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. By letter of 16 May 2007, sent to the applicant’s representative by registered post, he was requested to comment on the Government’s letter. He was again warned that the Court might strike the case out of its list of cases. This letter was returned by the postal service, as the applicant’s representative had failed to collect it from a post office where it had been deposited for two weeks. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President