FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 1749/03
by Oleksiy Mykhaylovych CHERTKOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrR. Maruste,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 November 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Chertkov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1976 and lives in the village of Kamyana Yaruga, the Kharkiv region of Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their acting Agent, Mrs I. Shevchuk, of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In July 2001 the applicant was involved in a traffic accident.
On 11 January 2002 the Chuguyevskiy Town Court of Kharkiv region found the applicant guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol and inflicting bodily harm on two individuals. The court sentenced him to three years’ of limitation of liberty and a two-year ban on driving. The court further ordered the applicant to pay to the aggrieved parties UAH 17,369.41[1] in compensation for material and moral damage.
On 5 March 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal changed the decision of the first instance court in part, and amnestied the applicant from his principal punishment – the limitation of liberty.
On 26 July 2002, a Judge of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation on the ground that the applicant challenged the courts’ conclusions on his civil claim, and not the criminal proceedings against him. This ruling was final and not subject to an appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about a violation of his right to a fair trial, without any further specification. He further complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 that his right to review of his case by a higher court was violated as a result of the refusal of the Supreme Court to examine his appeal in cassation. The latter complaint raised an issue of access to a court under Article 6 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
THE LAW
Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints on 22 December 2005. On 6 January 2006 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, he has not responded to a registered letter dated 5 May 2006, and received by the applicant on 18 May 2006, warning him of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 examination of this application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
[1] Around EUR 2,480
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy