FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30144/04
Vyacheslav Vasilyevich GANDRABURA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 September 2012 as a committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
André Potocki,
Paul Lemmens, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 August 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Vyacheslav Vasilyevich Gandrabura, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Kiev. He is represented before the Court by his mother, Mrs Mariya Gandrabura, residing in Kiev.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of ill-treatment by the police officers; under Article 5 § 1 the Convention of the unlawfulness of the administrative arrest and detention; under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case lasted too long and that the courts convicted him relying on the self-incriminating statements obtained against his will and by ill-treatment. The applicant further complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention of denied access to legal assistance. The applicant complained under Article 7 of the Convention that the courts sentenced him to life imprisonment while at the time of the crimes the heaviest punishment – in his opinion – was fifteen years’ imprisonment.
The applicant’s complaints concerning alleged ill-treatment by police, lawfulness of the administrative arrest and detention, use of evidence obtained against the applicant’s will and concerning the denied access to legal assistance 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 letter dated 19 March 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 4 January 2012 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. The applicant received this letter on 30 March 2012. 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 PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy