FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33014/06
Sergey Aleksandrovich LYASHENKO
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
André Potocki, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 July 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Aleksandrovich Lyashenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1987 and is currently detained. His application was lodged on 5 July 2006. He is represented before the Court by Ms L. Zharova-Titareva, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Lutkovska, from the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant's complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) 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 his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry's letter.
By letter dated 5 October 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant's representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 5 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 on 18 October 2011. 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 Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy