FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32453/03
by Andrey Ivanovich DOLYA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 September 2003,
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 Andrey Ivanovich Dolya, is a Ukrainian national who was born in Donetsk in 1974. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
A. The circumstances of the case
On 15 September 1995 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of having inflicted grievous bodily harm which resulted in the death of Mr B.
After several remittals of the case for additional investigations and retrials, on 31 January 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Донецької області), acting as a first-instance court, convicted the applicant of theft and unlawful possession of a weapon and of inflicting grievous bodily harm resulting in a death. The applicant was sentenced to eleven and a half years’ imprisonment.
On 6 February 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that during his pre-trial detention he had been subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
The applicant further complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) about the length and outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. He maintained that he had not had a fair trial and that the domestic courts had erred in assessment of evidence and application of law. He also complained that his lawyer, N., was ineffective.
The applicant complained under Article 13 of a lack of effective remedies for his complaints in respect of the length of criminal proceedings.
He finally relied on Article 7 of the Convention complaining that he served his sentence in a prison, whereas he had been supposed to serve it in a corrective labour colony.
THE LAW
By letter dated 28 November 2006 the applicant was informed that following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of his application, on 23 November 2006 the President of the Chamber to which the case had been allocated decided that notice of the application should be given to the respondent Government, who had been requested to provide their observations on the case by 20 February 2007.
By a letter of 18 February 2007 the applicant informed the Court that he had received the above letter and that, pending his release in March 2007, he should no longer be contacted at the address of his penitentiary. The applicant further assured the Court that he would notify it of his new correspondence address as soon as possible.
In absence of any further instructions from the applicant, on 11 May 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the address indicated as his permanent address in the application form of 22 December 2003. The applicant was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 2 July 2007.
By a letter dated 9 November 2007, sent by registered post to the same address, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 2 July 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’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.
Neither a reply to any of the two letters, nor the delivery slip for the letter of 9 November 2007 has been received by the Court.
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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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