FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16163/05
by Vladimir Nikolayevich BICHUKIN and SICH-21
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 May 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Vladimir Nikolayevich Bichukin, a Ukrainian national, and “Sich-21”, a company registered in Ukraine. The first applicant lives and the second applicant is based in Zaporizhzhya.
The applicants’ complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 about the lack of an ordinary appeal procedure in the administrative offence proceedings was communicated to the Government which proposed a friendly settlement. Their proposal was forwarded to the applicants who were twice invited to submit their position, but failed to reply.
By a letter dated 2 September 2009, sent by registered post, the applicants were requested to inform the Registry, within two weeks, whether they wished to maintain their application and, if so, whether they accepted the Government’s proposal. The applicants’ 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. As confirmed by the post office, the applicants received this letter on 7 September 2009. However, there has been no response from them.
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.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy