FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36394/08
Sergey Nikolayevich DERYAPA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 September 2012 as a committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ann Power-Forde,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 July 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Nikolayevich Deryapa, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Novoazovsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained, referring to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, about the unfair domestic court hearings and about a breach of his property rights.
His complaints above were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letters dated 28 March 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for designating his representative had expired on 8 February 2012 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s and his 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 letter returned as not claimed and no reply followed.
THE LAW
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.
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.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy