CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 novembre 2009

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s7779956E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s635176F2 { width:141.94pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 32120/06 by Andrius ŠIKTOROVAS against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Danutė Jočienė,   András Sajó,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Işıl Karakaş,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 July 2006, Having regard to the observations and the information submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Andrius Šiktorovas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1985. His current residence is unknown. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms E.   Baltutytė. The applicant was charged in criminal proceedings and during the pre-trial investigation was held in the detention facilities of two police stations. He originally complained to the Court that the conditions of detention in these facilities were incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. THE LAW The Court considers that it is unnecessary to continue the examination of the present case for the reasons outlined below. After communication of the application to the respondent Government and receipt of their observations, the applicant was invited to respond, together with his claims for just satisfaction, before 22   January 2009. By a letter dated 26   February 2009, sent by registered post to Marijampolė Penitentiary Prison where the applicant had been detained, the Court advised the applicant that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 22   January 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. His 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. However, no response was received. The Court asked the Government about the applicant’s whereabouts and on 30   April 2009 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had been released from Marijampolė Penitentiary Prison on 16   September 2008, having completed his sentence. Subsequent extensive inquiries made by the Government and the Court failed to reveal the applicant’s current address and he has not made any contact with the Registry. The Court considers that, in the above 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 strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Françoise Elens-Passos   Françoise Tulkens Deputy Registrar   President