CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 octobre 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. 25460/04 by Aleksandrs GVOZDECKIS against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18   October   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 5 July 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Aleksandrs Gvozdeckis, is a Latvian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Olaine. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine. 2.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about an alleged ill-treatment by police officers during his stay in the Ventspils Police department. 3.     On 3 May 2011 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. 4.     By a registered letter dated 4   July 2011 the Court notified the applicant that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 17   June 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. 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. 5.     According to the notice of delivery, the Court’s letter was delivered to the applicant on 14   July 2011. However, no response has been received from him. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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