FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30472/05
Iryna Bogdanivna GUSEVA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 September 2012 as a committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ann Power-Forde,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 August 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Iryna Bogdanivna Guseva, is a Ukrainian national born in 1965, who lives in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 8 § 1 that eviction from the residential premise she occupied was not lawful. She further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts’ decisions were manifestly arbitrary.
The applicant’s complaints above 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 her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 22 November 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the completed authority form had expired on 15 July 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. The applicant received this letter on 30 November 2011. However, no response followed.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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