FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6140/05
by Zoya Ilyinichna KRAVCHENKO
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30 August 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Mark Villiger,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 January 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Zoya Ilyinichna Kravchenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Stakhanov. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention about the restriction of her freedom to impart information and hold opinions. She also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings in her case.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 10 was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the case. 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 two registered letters sent on 9 March 2011 to the applicant’s address and “poste restante”, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for designating a representative and for submission of her observations had expired on 30 August and 21 September 2010 respectively 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 first letter was returned undelivered, while no response has been received to the second letter.
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