FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42289/09
A against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 31 January 2017 as a Commitee composed of:
Erik Møse, President,
Yonko Grozev,
Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,
and Anne-Marie Dougin, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 August 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr A, is, according to his declaration, a stateless person whose last known address was in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Ukraine. The President of the Fifth Section decided that the applicant’s identity should not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court). The applicant was represented before the Court by a lawyer admitted to Ukrainian Bar.
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Mr I. Lishchyna.
3. At the time of lodging the application the applicant was in detention awaiting extradition, which had been ordered by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine under the Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention that he would face a risk of ill-treatment and flagrant denial of justice if extradited from Ukraine; under Article 5 § 1, that his detention pending extradition was unlawful; under Article 5 § 4, that there was no procedure by which its lawfulness could be examined; under Article 8, that there would be a breach of his right to private and family life if extradition took place; and, under Article 13, that he had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the above complaints.
4. On 7 August 2009 the President of the Chamber to which the case had been allocated indicated to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited until further notice. In view of assurances provided by the Government that the applicant would not be extradited before the Court had considered the case, the application of this measure was discontinued on 5 January 2011.
5. On 25 November 2010 the applicant was released from extradition detention as the maximum statutory period for such detention had expired. It appears that upon his release he continued to reside in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
6. On 17 October 2011 the application was communicated. The parties submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. On 23 April 2012 the applicant, through his representative, submitted claims for just satisfaction and on 20 June 2012 the Government commented on those claims.
7. On 12 January 2016 the Judge Rapporteur, under Rule 49 § 3 (a) of the Rules of Court, requested that the applicant submit, by 26 January 2016, factual information concerning any further developments in the case since June 2012.
8. The postal addresses the applicant and his representative provided to the Court are in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. However, since at least March 2014 postal links with those addresses have been disrupted. For this reason, the letter of 12 January 2016 containing the Judge Rapporteur’s request for information was sent to the representative’s email address.
9. As there had been no response, on 22 March 2016 the letter was sent to the representative’s postal address in Kharkiv, which was available from the public Register of Lawyers of Ukraine maintained by the National Bar Association. The letter has been returned by the post office as “unclaimed”.
10. No response has been received by the Court and no other communication has been received from the applicant since 20 June 2012.
THE LAW
11. The Court observes that the applicant’s case concerns the risk of his extradition from Ukraine and the application is directed solely against that respondent State. However, the applicant and his representative must be aware that since at least March 2014 it is no longer possible for the Court to contact them by post at their declared addresses and that it is no longer practically possible for the Ukrainian authorities to effect his extradition from the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
12. The Court considers that in such circumstances it was incumbent on the applicant to inform the Court of his intention to maintain his application solely against Ukraine despite the serious changes in the circumstances since the time the application had been lodged. Even making allowances for the difficulties the applicant was likely to suffer due to that very change of circumstances, the Court considers that by now the applicant has had ample time to contact it.
13. 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.
14. The Court also notes that Article 37 § 2 of the Convention allows it to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify taking such a course.
15. 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 23 February 2017.
Anne-Marie DouginErik Møse
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy