FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 52243/11
Yevgeniy Anatolyevich TSYMBAL
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 November 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
André Potocki, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 August 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Anatolyevich Tsymbal, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Pershotravensk.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about excessive length of criminal proceedings to which he was the party.
On 19 August 2013 the application was communicated to the Government who, on 2 December 2013, submitted their formal declaration accepting a friendly settlement of the case. The Government’s declaration was forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to inform the Court whether he accepted the settlement in question. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 26 June 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his declaration confirming the friendly settlement had expired on 7 February 2014 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 applicant received this letter on 8 May 2014. 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 Phillips Vincent A. De Gaetano
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy