CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 décembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .sB09F7C54 { width:216.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 28135/07 Guntars JEVDOKIMOVS against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8   December 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Erik Møse, President,   Yonko Grozev,   Mārtiņš Mits, judges, and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 June 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Guntars Jevdokimovs, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1985. 2.     The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. 3.     Without referring to any particular provision of the Convention, the applicant complained that after his surrender from Cyprus to Latvia he had not been informed of and had been tried for criminal offences for which he had not been surrendered to the Latvian authorities. 4.     The aforementioned complaint was communicated to the Government under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a), (b) of the Convention. The applicant was invited to complete and return to the Registry by 5 August 2015 an authority form authorising an advocate to represent him in the proceedings before the Court in accordance with Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 of the Rules of Court. No reply was received from the applicant. 5.     By letter dated 22 September 2015, sent by registered post, the Registry notified the applicant that no reply had been received from him. The Registry invited him to complete and return by 6 October 2015 the authority form and 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 the applicant was no longer interested in pursuing his application and to strike it out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 6.     The aforementioned letter was sent to the applicant’s address in Jēkabpils, which he had notified to the Court. The Registry’s letter was returned as “addressee unknown”. It therefore appears that the applicant did not inform the Court about the change of his address for correspondence. THE LAW 7.     The Court reiterates that under Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application. It 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. 8.     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 7 January 2016.   Milan Blaško   Erik Møse Deputy Registrar   President