FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39402/02
by Mikhail Petrovich SOPROUN
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 October 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mikhail Petrovich Soproun, is a Ukrainian national born in 1949 and residing in Yalta. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention of unfairness of the proceedings as the result of which his registration as an elected member of Municipal Council was cancelled. He also complained of unfairness of defamation proceedings instituted by him against number of private persons. He further alleged a violation of his rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and lack of effective remedy as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention for his complaints.
On 21 October 2003 the President of the Second Section decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to communicate the application to the Government of Ukraine. In 2004 and 2005 the parties exchanged observations.
The last letter sent to the Court by the applicant was dated 7 March 2005.
By letter dated 26 October 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was requested to inform the Court by 27 November 2009 whether he wished to maintain his application. The applicant received this letter on 30 October 2009. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
Given that the applicant has failed to demonstrate any interest in the present application for more than four years and that there is no information that he is in any way prevented from doing so, 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. 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