FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 6472/07 Oleksandr Yevgenovych SOBKO against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting on 3 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Angelika Nußberger , President, André Potocki , Aleš Pejchal , judges,

and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 January 2007 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Oleksandr Yevgenovych Sobko , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Kyiv .

The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kulchytskyy , from the Ministry of Justice.

The applicant ’ s complaints concerning lawfulness and length of his pre-trial detention and length of the criminal proceedings against him were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The applicant was requested to appoint a legal representative. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

By letter dated 10 February 2014 , sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for appointing a representative and submission of the completed authority form had expired on 21 March 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ’ s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received this letter on 4 March 2014 . However, no response has been received.

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, 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 case.

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 Angelika Nußberger              Deputy Registrar President