FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21011/06
by Igor Petrovych FRANKO
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24 May 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 May 2006,
Having regard to the partial decision of 24 August 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Igor Petrovych Franko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Chervonograd. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Lutkovska, from the Ministry of Justice.
On 24 August 2010 the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.
By letter dated 17 January 2011 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 24 February 2011.
By letter dated 30 March 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 24 February 2011 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. However, no response has been received.
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