CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 mars 2011

.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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC9D6F765 { width:209.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 45396/04 by Mairis LĪDAKS against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22   March 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Ján Šikuta, President,   Ineta Ziemele,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 September 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The application was lodged by Mr Mairis Līdaks, a Latvian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Cēsis. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine. The applicant’s complaints concerning the conditions of detention in the Cēsis District Police short-term detention facility and in Valmiera prison were communicated to the Government. The applicant was requested to designate a representative pursuant to Rule 36 § 2 of the Rules of the Court. No reply was received to that request. By letters dated 16 August and 21 September 2010, sent by registered post and received by the applicant’s mother on, respectively, 19   August and 25   September 2010, the applicant was reminded of the need to designate a representative. 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. No response followed. The Government 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 letter dated 12 January 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 15 December 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was once again drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. However, no response was 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.   Marialena Tsirli   Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar   President