M.Š. and J.Š. v. Latvia

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 1643/12 M.Š. and J.Š. against Latvia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 October 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Päivi Hirvelä, President, Ledi Bianku, Paul Mahoney, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 December 2011,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants, Ms M. Š. and Ms J. Š., are Latvian nationals, who were born in 1969 and 2005 respectively and live in Riga. The second applicant is the first applicant’s daugther. The President of the Section of his own motion decided that the applicants’ identity was not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). The applicants’ were represented before the Court by Ms A. Mazapša, a lawyer practising in Babīte.

The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs K. Līce.

The applicants complained under Article 13, in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention about the investigation into the alleged sexual abuse of the second applicant.

The applicants’ complaints under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

By letter dated 18 June 2013, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 22 April 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ representative’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. The applicants’ representative received this letter on 4 July 2013. However, no response has been received.

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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.

Fatoş Aracı Päivi Hirvelä Deputy Registrar President