FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28638/02
by Leonid Konstantinovich GLUSHKO
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrR. Maruste,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 June 2002,
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 Leonid Konstantinovich Glushko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Kremenchug. He was represented before the Court by Mrs D. Nazarenko, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Shevchuk, Head of the Office of the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 June 2000 the applicant’s son, Mr K. Glushko, was arrested on suspicion of extortion and robbery. He was taken to the Kyivskyy District Police Department, where he was placed in one of the offices on the third floor. The applicant’s son remained in handcuffs and under supervision of a police officer. According to the findings of the prosecutors, several hours later the applicant jumped out of the window. He sustained severe injuries and was hospitalised. On 15 June 2000 the applicant’s son died in the hospital.
On the latter day the Kyivskyy District Prosecutor’s Office commenced criminal investigation into the death of the applicant’s son, suspecting that the police officers had incited him to suicide. The applicant was admitted to participate in the investigation as an aggrieved party. The investigation was discontinued and resumed on several occasions.
On 23 May 2002 the prosecutors discontinued the investigation, finding no corpus delicti in the police officers’ actions. The prosecutors, having sent a copy of their resolution to the applicant, rejected the request of the applicant’s lawyer for leave to consult the case file.
The applicant did not challenge the lawfulness of the prosecutors’ resolution or actions before the domestic courts.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained in substance under Article 2 § 1 of the Convention, alleging that the unidentified police officers were responsible for the death of his son. The applicant further complained that the investigation into his son’s death had not been independent, adequate or effective.
The applicant also complained in substance under Article 3 of the Convention that his son had been tortured by the police officers before his death.
THE LAW
Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility of the application on 12 December 2005. On 11 January 2006 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, he has failed to respond to a registered letter dated 24 April 2006, which his representative received on 16 May 2006, warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 examination of this application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.
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