FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 37949/05 and 45116/06
Sergey Vyacheslavovich ZADOROZHNYY against Ukraine
and Nelli Pavlivna TROFIMOVA against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 21 February 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
André Potocki, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 6 October 2005 and 28 October 2006 respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applications were lodged by two Ukrainian nationals: the application no. 37949/05 was lodged by Mr Sergey Vyacheslavovich Zadorozhnyy (“the first applicant”) who was born in 1970 and currently serves a prison sentence in the Lviv Region; and the application no. 45116/06 was lodged by Mrs Nelli Pavlivna Trofimova (“the second applicant), who was born in 1937 and lives in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
The first applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention about the alleged breach of his defence rights and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. The second applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention about the domestic authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into her granddaughter’s death. The applicants also raised other complaints.
The applicants’ complaints under the aforementioned provisions of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. However, they failed to reply.
By registered letters sent on 10 August 2011, the applicants were warned that their cases might be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. The applicants received the letters on 26 August 2011, but failed to reply.
THE LAW
1. The Court considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal and factual background.
2. It further considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications and to strike them out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy