FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38836/09
by Mykhaylo Leonidovych PARAMONOV and Others
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 October 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 July 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Mykhaylo Leonidovych Paramonov, Mr Bogdan Ivanovych Vavrynchuk, Mrs Olena Ivanivna Shkorina, Mr Oleksandr Vadymovych Bets, Mr Yevgen Igorovych Vovk, Mr Vitaliy Valeriyovych Danylenko, Mrs Nataliya Oleksiyivna Kyrychenko, Mr Oleg Mykolayovych Kolesnyk, Mr Yevgen Sergiyovych Kurenkov, Mr Anatoliy Grygorovych Maydanevych, Mrs Tetyana Volodymyrivna Rosik, Mrs Lyudmyla Anatoliyivna Syzova, Mr Sergiy Mykolayovych Sukhomlinov, Mrs Tamara Oleksandrivna Trusova, Mrs Tetyana Viktorivna Frych, Mrs Tetyana Vasylivna Shchasna, Mrs Tetyana Ivanivna Yashchuk, Mrs Antonina Oleksandrivna Malchenko, Mrs Lyubov Kyrylivna Leontyuk and Mrs Iryna Oleksandrivna Nabudovych, Ukrainian nationals who live in Kyiv. They were represented before the Court by Mr Eduard Sadykhovych Bagirov, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about non-enforcement of a court judgment in their favour.
On 11 February 2010 the application was communicated to the Government for information.
On 15 July 2010 the applicants' lawyer informed the Court that the applicants no longer wished to pursue the application.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
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 PhillipsRait Maruste
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy