FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 6689/02 by Oleksandr Vasylyovych MAMONTOV against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Karel Jungwiert , Volodymyr Butkevych , Renate Jaeger , Mark Villiger , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , judges, and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 July 2001,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, M r Oleksandr Vasylyovych Mamontov , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1949 and lives in the city of Shostka , Ukraine . The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

In January and February 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of embezzlement, tax evasion and forgery.

In February 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv against the General Prosecutor ’ s Office of Ukraine and the State Tax Administration. He asked the court to find that the opening of the criminal proceedings against him had been unlawful and to order their closure.

On 21 March 2001 the court allowed his complaint finding that the Sumy Regional Prosecutor ’ s office had acted unlawfully when instituting the criminal proceedings against the applicant.

On 13 June 2001 the Kyiv City Court quashed this decision and closed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

In August 2001 the applicant again lodged a claim with the Kyivkiy District Court of Kharkiv against the General Prosecutor ’ s Office of Ukraine, seeking a finding that the criminal proceedings against him were unlawful and claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

On 6 September 2001 the court partly allowed his claim. On 22 November 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. Thus it became final.

On 19 December 2001 the investigator of the Sumy Prosecutor ’ s Office terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant, referring to the courts ’ decisions of 6 September and 22 November.

On 26 April 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the appeal in cassation of the General Prosecutor ’ s Office against the decisions of 6 September and 22 November 2001.

On 5 May 2003 the prosecutor of the General Prosecutor ’ s Office quashed the decision of the Sumy Prosecutor ’ s Office of 19 December 2001.

The criminal case against the applicant was thus re-opened and sent to the Sumy Prosecutor ’ s Office for further investigation.

On 13 April 2004 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the decision of the Kyiv City Court of 13 June 2001 was unlawful. He further complained under the same provision that his right to a court had been breached as a result of complete ignorance by the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the final and binding judgments. He finally complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.

THE LAW

By a letter of 12 November 2007 the applicant informed the Court that the criminal investigation against him had been terminated and stated that he withdrew his complaints.

Having regard to the above circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing his application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention . By reference to Article 37 §§ 1(a), the Court considers that the case should be struck out of its list of cases. It finds no particular reasons concerning respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, which would require further examination of the present application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

For these reasons, the Cou rt unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

             Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President