FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35770/08
Mikhail Ivanovich SIRYAK
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 October 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ann Power-Forde,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 July 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Mikhail Ivanovich Siryak, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Kiev. He was represented before the Court by Mr A.V. Lesovoy, a lawyer practising in Simferopol.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained under Articles 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention concerning the unlawfulness and excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against him was unreasonable. Finally, he raised complaints under Articles 3, 6 § 3 and 13 of the Convention.
The applicant’s complaints under Articles 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 31 May 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 11 April 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’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 applicant’s representative received this letter on 12 June 2013. 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.
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.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy