CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 14 décembre 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 } .sA5E34492 { width:18.86pt; display:inline-block } .sB2998F02 { width:154.72pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 14958/05 by Leonīds PETROVS against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14   December 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Corneliu Bîrsan,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Egbert Myjer,   Ineta Ziemele,   Luis López Guerra,   Ann Power, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 April 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The application was lodged by Mr Leonīds Petrovs, a Latvian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Zlēku parish in Latvia. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs   I.   Reine. The applicant submitted complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention. His complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of proceedings was communicated to the Government on 23 September 2009, who expressed their wish to reach a friendly settlement in the case. By letter dated 3 November 2009 the applicant was informed of the Government’s position and both parties were invited to accept the terms of the friendly settlement proposal. By letter dated 22 January 2010 the applicant was informed that Government had accepted the terms of the friendly settlement proposal and the applicant was requested to formally confirm his acceptance of that proposal by 5 February 2010. By letter dated 22 February 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his position regarding the friendly settlement had expired on 5 February 2010. A note was also made of the fact that the applicant had not replied to the Court’s letters of 23   September, 3 November 2009 and 22 January 2010. The applicant’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. The applicant received this letter on 26   February   2010. However, no response has been received. By letter dated 15   September 2010, sent by registered post and accompanied by an unofficial translation of its contents, the applicant was repeatedly notified that the period allowed for submission of his position regarding the friendly settlement had expired on 5   February 2010. The same note concerning no response was made and the applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The applicant received this letter on 20 September 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