FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 3396/08 Ivan Dmytrovych KOTOK against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 September 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Ann Power-Forde , President, Ganna Yudkivska , André Potocki , judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 December 2007 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Ivan Dmytrovych Kotok , wa s a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1938 and died on 2 April 2009. He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Koval .

The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) wer e represented by their Agent, M s N. Sevostianova , from the Ministry of Justice.

The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention about the unfairness of criminal proceedings against him and lack of legal assistance at the initial stage of those proceedings .

On 6 May 2013 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant ’ s complaints detailed above.

On 24 September 2013 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. On 10 December 2013 the Registry sent a letter to the applicant ’ s representative requesting certain documents essential to the processing of the application. In reply, by letter dated 27 February 2014 , the applicant ’ s representative informed the Registry that the applicant had died on 2 April 2009 and that the applicant ’ s son S.K. wished to pursue the application. The representative was thus requested to submit the documents confirming that S.K. was the applicant ’ s legal heir and that he authori s ed his representation in the applicant ’ s stead. By letter of 10 June 2014, the representative informed that she could not submit the requested documents as she had lost any contact with S. K. The latter has never been in direct communication with the Court and its Registry.

THE LAW

In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant ’ s heir does not wish to pursue the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.

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 Phillips Ann Power-Forde              Deputy Registrar President