FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4409/04
by Anisim Semenovych GAVRYLOVYCH
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,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 December 2003,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Anisim Semenovych Gavrylovych, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Rivne. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Yu. Zaytsev.
On 4 December 2008 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 4 of the Convention concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the lack of appropriate judicial review of such detention.
By a letter dated 11 May 2009 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 30 June 2009.
By a letter dated 5 August 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 30 June 2009 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 2 September 2009. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant failed to reply to the Court’s letters of 11 May and 5 August 2009 without any valid reason. It considers therefore 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.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy