FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23335/07
SLOVO BATKIVSHCHYNY
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 31 January 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Erik Møse, President,
Yonko Grozev,
Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,
and Anne-Marie Dougin, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 May 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Slovo Batkivshchyny, is a Ukrainian company.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna.
The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention about a violation of its freedom of expression.
The application was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. On 27 July 2016 the observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit its own observations.
Centre for Democracy and Rule of Law, a Ukrainian NGO, has been granted leave to intervene in the written procedure. Its written comments concerning the case and the Government’s comments in reply were forwarded to the applicant company.
No reply was received to the Registry’s letters.
By letter dated 19 December 2016, sent by registered post, the applicant company was notified that the period allowed for submission of its observations had expired on 8 September 2016 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. The latter letter was returned to the Court with a postmark stating that the addressee has moved («вибув»).
THE LAW
The Court received no correspondence from the applicant company after 26 November 2010. Four letters sent to it by the Court between 27 July and 19 December 2016 did not lead to any response. The letter sent on the latter date by registered post has been returned with a postmark indicating that the applicant company may have changed its address. However, it did not inform the Court of its new address despite having been informed, at the outset of the proceedings, of its duty to do so.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant company may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue its 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 23 February 2017.
Anne-Marie DouginErik Møse
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy