CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 janvier 2016

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 5118/10 Dmitrijs SEMINARISTOVS against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26   January 2016 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 5 January 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Dmitrijs Seminaristovs, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1974. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about his alleged ill-treatment by a special unit of the Prisons Administration, as well as about the deficiencies of the ensuing investigation. The applicant’s Article 3 complaints were communicated to the Government, who on 16 February 2015 submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were not forwarded to the applicant, as he had not yet appointed a representative. On 2   April 2015 the applicant was granted legal aid and he was invited to inform the Court of the appointed representative by 7   May 2015. As no response was received, on 6 July 2015 the Court sent a letter to the applicant and to his mother, whose address the applicant had indicated in his previous correspondence, inviting the applicant to appoint a representative and to inform the Court thereof by 27   July 2015. On 30 July 2015 the Court received a letter from the applicant asking the Court to provide him with a lawyer. The letter had no return address and contained a request to send all further correspondence to his mother in Sweden and to an e-mail address. By letter dated 4 August 2015, sent by registered post to the applicant’s last known address in Germany, as well as to his mother in Sweden and to his e-mail address, the applicant was again requested to appoint a lawyer and to inform the Court thereof by 16 September 2015. The applicant’s attention was drawn to the fact that, should he fail to appoint a representative before the indicated date, the Court might conclude that he is no longer interested in pursuing the application. The applicant was also informed that the Court might, on such grounds, strike the case out of its list of cases. On 10 September 2015 the letter that had been sent to the applicant’s last known address in Germany was returned to the Court with an indication that the address was not known. It appears that on 17   September 2015 the applicant attempted to send a letter by fax to the Court. However, the document received contained only the case title and the application number. It comprised no further text. The Court has received no further correspondence from the applicant since that date. 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 18 February 2016.   Milan Blaško   Erik Møse Deputy Registrar   President