FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11657/05
Ivan Ivanovich LIKHODED and Vladlen Ivanovich LIKHODED
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 September 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 19 March 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
Mr Ivan Ivanovich Likhoded (“the first applicant”) and Mr Vladlen Ivanovich Likhoded (“the second applicant”) are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1950 and 1974, respectively, and live in Zaporizhzhya.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.
Relying on various provisions of the Convention, the applicants essentially complained about the unfairness, outcome and length of the civil proceedings to which they had been parties. The first applicant also complained about the unfairness, outcome and length of the administrative offence proceedings against him and alleged that his ensuing detention had been contrary to Article 5.
Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. By letters of 23 September and 21 November 2011, the applicants were invited to appoint a legal representative for the proceedings before the Court. However, they failed to do so. They also failed to respond to a registered letter dated 17 January 2012 warning the applicants of the possibility that their case might be struck out of the Court’s list. According to the acknowledgement of receipt slip, the letter has not been picked up.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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