FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31725/02 by Igor Yevgenyevich LANTSOV against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr P. Lorenzen , President , Mrs S. Botoucharova , Mr V. Butkevych , Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska , Mr R. Maruste , Mr J. Borrego Borrego , Mrs R. Jaeger, judges , and Mrs C. 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, Mr Igor Yevgenyevich Lantsov , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1968 and lives in the city of Odessa . He wa s represented before the Court by Mr V. Tereshchenko and Mr S. Tereschenko from Odessa . 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.

On 26 January 1996 the applicant lodged a claim with the Zhovtnevy District Court of Odessa, seeking rescission of a purchase contract of an apartment .

On 11 April 1996 the defendants lodged a counter-claim, seeking the eviction of the applicant ’ s family from the disputed apartment.

On 12 December 1996 the applicant lodged a claim with the same court against the private notary Y., seeking rescission of powers of attorney, issued by this notary on his behalf.

On 12 December 1996 the above claims were joined.

On 17 May 2000 the court found for the applicant and rejected the counter-claim. This decision was not appealed against and became final.

On 21 February 2001 the Presidium of the Odessa Regional Court quashed the decision of 17 May 2000 upon a “ protest ” ( протест в порядк е на дзора ) lodged with it by the Deputy President of the Odessa Regional Court , and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.

On 11 October 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal against this decision.

On 26 June 2003 the Primorskiy District Court of Odessa found against the applicant and ordered the eviction of his family from the disputed apartment.

The applicant appealed against this decision.

Following the applicant ’ s request, on 30 October 2003 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal returned the case to the first instance court in order to allow the applicant to submit his remarks on the trial records.

On 27 February 2004 the Primorskiy District Court of Odessa refused to examine the applicant ’ s remarks on the trial records as he lodged them after the statutory time-limit.

On 29 March and 7 September 2004 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal returned the case to the first instance court, having ordered the latter to examine the applicant ’ s remarks on the trial records.

On 26 July 2005 the first instance court sent the case to the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal.

The proceedings are still pending.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair hearing had been violated by the quashing of the judgment in his favour, and that that the proceedings before the Odessa Regional Court had been unfair. He further complained that he had no effective remedy against the decision of the Odessa Regional Court of 21 February 2001 and invoked Article 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application on 11 January 2006. On 6 February 2006 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, he has failed to respond to the registered letter dated 7 June 2007, warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court ’ s list.

Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 examination of this application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.

For these reasons, the Cour t unanimously

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

Claudia W esterdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President