CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 novembre 2010

.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 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; 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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFCF63115 { width:173.58pt; display:inline-block } .s850EA3CF { width:20.24pt; display:inline-block } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s1C0B4509 { width:230.14pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 12462/08 by Edgars GULBIS against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23   November 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Elisabet Fura,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Ineta Ziemele,   Luis López Guerra,   Ann Power, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 February 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The application was lodged by Mr Edgars Gulbis, a Latvian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Rīga. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Ogurcovs, a lawyer practising in Rīga. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs I.   Reine The applicant complained, in particular, about an alleged ill-treatment during police detention, the alleged lack of prompt and thorough investigation in that regard and about the alleged lack of independence of the domestic authorities conducting the investigation. The above-mentioned complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letters dated 1 June 2010 and 8 July 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 28 April 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. 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. These letters were received at the applicant’s representative’s office on, respectively, 7 June 2010 and 13 July 2010. On 30 July 2010 the applicant’s representative sent a letter to the Court, expressing a wish to supplement the original application. No observations concerning the communicated complaints were included in the letter and no explanation was given as to their absence. By a letter dated 19 August 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was once again informed that the period for submission of observations had expired. He was further informed that any additional complaints would have to be submitted to the Court by completing a new application form. The applicant’s representative’s attention was once more drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. This letter was received at the applicant’s representative’s office on 23 August 2010. However, no response has been received. THE LAW 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 strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Santiago Quesada   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President