FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 51199/08
O.R.
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 23 September 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Angelika Nußberger, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 October 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, O.R., is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Kyiv. The President granted the applicant’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained, in particular, that he was not provided with suitable psychiatric treatment during his detention in the Kyiv pre-trial detention centre, which was contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against him was excessive.
These complaints 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 replies were received to the Registry’s correspondence.
By letter dated 1 April 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 30 January 2014 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. However, the letter returned to the Registry as not having been collected from the post office (non-réclamé).
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 PhillipsAngelika Nußberger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy