FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 1434/06
by Igor Petrovich KASHPERSKIY
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 December 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Igor Petrovich Kashperskiy, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Yakymivka, Ukraine. He is formally represented before the Court by Mr Viktor Mishechkin. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about conditions of his detention and under Article 6 §§ 1 and 6 § 3 (b)-(d) of the Convention about excessive length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. He further raised a number of other complaints under Articles 2, 5 §§ 1 and 3, 7, 8, 9, 13, 17, 34 and 47 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 4 of Protocol no. 7.
The applicant’s complaints concerning conditions of his detention, excessive length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations and subsequently the annexes to them were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received. The last correspondence from the applicant was received on 13 March 2008.
By letter dated 4 January 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 30 October 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. This letter was returned to the Court as unknown.
By the similar letter dated 25 June 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was further notified about expiry of the period allowed for submission of his client’s observations. He received this letter on 2 July 2010. 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 VilligerDeputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy