CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 mars 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s46C79669 { width:202.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 7712/12 Artūrs TUČS against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10   March 2015 as a Committee composed of:   George Nicolaou, President,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 January 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Artūrs Tučs, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1990 and is last known to have been detained in Daugavpils. 2.     The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. 3.     Referring to Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention the applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been based essentially on his status of a suspect and subsequently that of an accused in the criminal proceedings. 4.     The above applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations. 5.     By a letter dated 21 July 2014 the Registry requested that the applicant designate a representative for the proceedings before the Court. The Registry’s letter was returned with indication that the applicant had been released from detention and that his address was unknown. 6.     By letters dated 11 August and 1 October 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant was informed of the Registry’s correspondence of 21   July 2014. The former was returned as “unclaimed”. The latter, sent to the address which the applicant had indicated on the application form as his permanent address, was received, as it appears, by a person other than the applicant on 6 October 2014. In any event, no response from the applicant was received. 7.     On 19 November 2014 the applicant was invited by registered mail at the last address in detention he had provided to the Court to designate by 17   December 2014 a representative. The applicant was requested to inform the Registry whether he wished to maintain his application. It was noted that the failure to reply may lead the Court to conclude that he is no longer interested in pursuing his application and to strike it out of its list of cases. The Registry’s letter was returned as “unclaimed”. THE LAW 8.     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. 9.     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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 2 April 2015.   Fatoş Aracı   George Nicolaou Deputy Registrar   President