FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26947/05
by Roman Stepanovych KUKHAR
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 July 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Roman Stepanovych Kukhar, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Drohobych. He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Savytskyy, a lawyer practising in Drohobych. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Yu. Zaytsev.
On 19 January 2009 the Court decided to communicate the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the alleged breach of the principle of equality of arms in the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
By a letter dated 12 June 2009 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s lawyer, who was requested to submit any observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction, by 29 July 2009.
By two letters dated 26 August 2009, sent by registered post to the applicant and his lawyer, the Court notified the applicant that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 29 July 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. On 5 September 2009 the letter addressed to the applicant’s lawyer was returned, the reason given being that he had died. On 2 October 2009 the letter addressed to the applicant was returned as unclaimed.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant failed to reply to the Court’s letter of 26 August 2009 without any valid reason. It 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 there are no special circumstances concerning the respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which would 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.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy