FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17873/06
Valentina Viktorovna KOVALENKO
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 October 2012 as a committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
André Potocki, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 April 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Valentina Viktorovna Kovalenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Mykolayiv. She was represented before the Court by Mr Sergiy Monets, a lawyer practising in Mykolayiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that she was not provided with appropriate medical treatment during her detention. She further alleged, referring to Article 5, that her pre-trial detention has been excessive and not reasoned. She also alleged, under Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention, that she was not given sufficient time to prepare her defence, was prevented from full participation in the trial and was not allowed access to a lawyer of her own choosing. The applicant also raised complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 4, stating that she was prosecuted for her contractual obligations to the financial institutions.
The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention 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 24 November 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 15 September 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’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’s representative received this letter in person on 14 December 2011. However, no reply 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 PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy