FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 317/05 Sergey Fyedorovich VOROBYEV against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 October 2012 as a c ommittee composed of:

Mark Villiger , President, Karel Jungwiert , André Potocki , judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 December 2004,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergey Fyedorovich Vorobyev , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Kryviy Rih . The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy , of the Ministry of Justice.

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police. He further complained that the domestic authorities had failed to examine his allegations of ill-treatment properly. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 that he had been convicted on the basis of the self-incriminating statements obtained by the police against his will and, in particular, as a result of his ill-treatment. Under the same provision he stated that he had had no access to a lawyer at the initial stage of the proceedings.

The applicant ’ s complaints under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant ’ s representative, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

By letter dated 21 November 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant ’ s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 20 September 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant representative ’ 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 letter could not be duly delivered to the applicant ’ s representative and no reply followed.

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 Mark Villiger Deputy Registrar President