1.  The case originated in an application (no. 2333/02) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Lithuanian national, Mr Haroldas Trijonis (“the applicant”), on 19 April 2001. 3.  The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. Mr P. Kūris, the judge elected in respect of Lithuania, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr J. Hedigan, the judge elected in respect of Ireland, to sit in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 4.  The applicant complained inter alia that criminal proceedings against him had been excessively long contrary to the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, and that the remand measure of home arrest ordered in the context of those proceedings had breached Article 5 of the Convention. The applicant made his last communication to the Court by an undated letter received on 24 February 2004, stating that he had maintained his complaints under the Convention. 5.  On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Third Section (Rule 52 § 1). 7.  By a letter of the Registry of 31 March 2005 the applicant was informed about the decision. It was noted in the letter that the applicant had until 23 May 2005 to submit his observations on the merits, his position on the friendly settlement in the case, and his claims for just satisfaction (Rules 59, 60 and 62 of the Rules of Court). The letter was sent to his home address in Klaipeda by ordinary post. 9.  By a letter of the Registry of 21 June 2005, sent to the applicant’s home address by registered post, the applicant was reminded that he had not submitted a reply to the Court’s letter of 31 March 2005. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provided that the Court could strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances led to the conclusion that an applicant did not intend to pursue the application. 10.  On 23 September 2005 a further letter of the Registry was sent to the applicant’s home address by registered post, reiterating the contents of the letters of 31 March and 21 June 2005. 11.  Receipt by the applicant of the registered letters of 21 June and 23 September 2005 was confirmed by the post service. However, the applicant has not replied to any of the above-mentioned letters from the Registry of the Court.