FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26122/08
by Svetlana Nikolayevna ROZGON
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 May 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Ms Svetlana Nikolayevna Rozgon, a Ukrainian national who was born 1976 and lives in Yuvileyne. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
On 24 June 2009 the Court decided to communicate the applicant's complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of access to her minor daughter living with the father.
On 26 August 2009 the Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to present her own case and instructed her to appoint a legal representative by 1 October 2009.
On 2 September 2009 the Court received the Government's observations, but decided to wait with forwarding them to the applicant until she would appoint a lawyer.
By a letter of 30 September 2009 the applicant requested legal aid and extension of the time-limit for her to be legally represented.
On 19 October 2009 legal aid was granted to the applicant and the aforementioned time-limit was extended to 20 November 2009.
On 20 November 2009 the applicant appointed a representative. A week later she however retracted that authority form without any explanations and insisted on her wish to present her case herself.
By a letter of 8 December 2009, sent by registered post, the Court repeatedly instructed the applicant to appoint a representative in accordance with Rule 36 § 2 of the Rules of Court and set a new deadline at 8 January 2010. The applicant was also warned that in case of her unwillingness to be represented by a lawyer the Court could conclude that she was no longer interested in pursuing the application and decide to strike it out of its list of cases. While the applicant received this letter on 18 December 2009, as confirmed by her signature on the post receipt, she did not respond.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy