FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22292/06
by Liliya Mykolayivna VALKHOVSKA and
Larysa Viktorivna LYAKH
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 November 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 May 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Liliya Mykolayivna Valkhovska and Ms Larysa Viktorivna Lyakh, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1964 and 1955 respectively and live in Kherson. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Lutkovska, from the Ministry of Justice.
On 31 August 2010 the applicants’ complaints under Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.
By letter dated 11 April 2011 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants, who were requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 30 May 2011.
By letter dated 29 June 2011, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 30 May 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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 applicants do not intend to pursue the application. The applicants received the letter on 6 July 2011, but have not replied to it.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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