FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42676/08
Aleksandr Vladimirovich DOBROV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ann Power-Forde,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 August 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Vladimirovich Dobrov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Debaltseve.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kulchytskyy.
The only correspondence from the applicant received by the Registry was his application form dated 20 August 2008, in which he complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful and excessively lengthy and that he had had no access to an effective procedure by which the lawfulness of his detention could be decided speedily.
The above complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.
On 11 September 2012 the applicant was invited to designate an advocate to represent him before the Court in accordance with Rule 36 § 2 of the Rules of Court. No response to this letter has been received.
By letter dated 1 March 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant was informed that the period allowed for the designation of the advocate had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. This letter returned to the Court as “not claimed”.
THE LAW
Regard being had to the applicant’s failure to inform the Court of the change of his address and absence of any correspondence from him since August 2008, the Court considers that 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