FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40902/09
Vitaliy Vasilyevich STEPANISHEN
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 December 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 27 July 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Vasilyevich Stepanishen, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Khmelnytskyy He was represented before the Court by Ms T.O. Sivak, a lawyer practising in Khmelnytskyy.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.
The applicant raised a number of complaints under Article 5 of the Convention regarding his pre-trial detention.
The above complaints 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 letters dated 24 July 2013, sent by registered post to the applicant’s address and to two different addresses indicated by his representative, both the applicant and his representative were notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 4 June 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. Their 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. As confirmed by the signatures on the postal receipts, both letters addressed to the applicant’s representative were duly received. The Registry’s letter to the applicant was returned by the post because he failed to retrieve it.
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