FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39006/02
by Sergey Lvovich REMBEZI
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 January 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 September 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Sergey Lvovich Rembezi, is a Russian national who was born in 21 August 1988 and lives in Alchevsk, the Luhansk region, Ukraine. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Ms Marina Nikolayevna Rembezi, his wife. The respondent Government were represented by its Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The applicant complained of a violation of his right to life under Article 2 § 1 of the Convention and about violations of his procedural rights during the criminal proceedings against the police officer. He alleged lack of adequate investigation into the incident, involving the police officer, which lead to his injuries and allegedly threatened his life. The applicant also complained of inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, as regards the injuries inflicted on him by several police officers. The applicant further alleged that the barristers’ association and several advocates whom he or his wife had contacted refused to provide him with legal assistance as the criminal proceedings were directed against the policemen. The applicant stressed that the domestic authorities were unable to remedy the violation of his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The applicant also referred in this respect to Articles 6 §§ 3 (b), (c) and (d) and 13 of the Convention.
The present application had been communicated to the respondent Government on 22 December 2005. The Government’s observations were received on 19 April 2006 and sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 30 June 2006. The applicant failed to reply.
By letter dated 1 December 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 30 June 2006 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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.
Accordingly the application should be struck from the Court’s list of cases.
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