FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 29463/02 by Mariya Oleksandrivna VOTINTSEVA against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section), sitting on 9 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr P. Lorenzen , President ,

Mrs S. B otoucharova , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr V. Butkevych , Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska , Mr R. Maruste , Mr J. Borrego Borrego , judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 July 2002 ,

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, Ms Mariya Oleksandrivna Votintseva , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1945 and lives in the town of Trostianets , the Sumy r egion , Ukraine .

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

On 3 April 1998 the applicant brought an action in the Trostyanets District Court of the Sumy Region (hereafter “the District Court”), claiming that her former husband, Mr L., had lost the right to occupy the apartment.

The proceedings ended on 2 March 2005 , when the Supreme Court gave the final decision reject ing the applicant ’ s request for leave to appeal in cassation against the judgment of the District Court of 7 June 2004 , and the decision of the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal of 27 September 2004 .

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. She also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy against the excessive length of judicial proceedings in the domestic legal system.

THE LAW

Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant ’ s complaint on 30 June 2005 . On 13 July 2005 the ap plicant was invited to submit her observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, she has failed to respond to a registered letter dated 20 October 2005 and received by the applicant in person on 25 October 2005 , warning he r o f the possibility that her case might be struck out of the Court ’ s li st if she did not reply.

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 Court unanimously

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

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President