FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16639/04
by Aleksandr Ivanovich SHEVELEV and Others
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Rait Maruste,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Ganna Yudkivska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 April 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Aleksandr Ivanovich Shevelev, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1958 and resides in Donetsk, Ukraine (“the first applicant”), TOV Donsplav (“the second applicant”) and DP Tekhnoskrap of TOV Skrap (“the third applicant”), the privately owned companies based in Donetsk, Ukraine. The second and third applicants are represented by the first applicant, who is the director of these companies. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The applicants' complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility of the application. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry's letter.
By letter dated 29 January 2010, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of the their observations had expired on 1 December 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants' 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 applicants received this letter on 23 February 2010. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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