FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33654/03
by Ivan Ivanovich DEVDERA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 September 2003,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Ivan Ivanovich Devdera, was a Ukrainian national who was born in 1952 and lived in Krasnyy Lyman. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
On 6 September 2003 the applicant submitted his application to the Court complaining under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by police officers and that there had been no effective investigation into that incident.
On 10 November 2008 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government.
On 9 December 2008 the applicant’s son informed the Court that on 5 October 2008 the applicant died.
On 2 February 2009 the applicant’s son notified the Court that he wished to pursue the application.
By a letter dated 2 April 2009 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s son, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 20 May 2009.
By a letter dated 24 June 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant’s son was notified that the period allowed for submission of observations had expired on 20 May 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. His 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 person does not intend to pursue the application. Neither the return receipt nor any response from the applicant’s son was received by the Court.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant’s son failed to reply to the Court’s letters of 2 April and 24 June 2009 without any valid reason. It considers therefore that, in these circumstances, the applicant’s son may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
Moreover, the Court finds no special circumstances, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, 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