GAVRILYUK v. UKRAINE
Doc ref: 6511/05 • ECHR ID: 001-113903
Document date: September 25, 2012
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 6511/05 Dmitriy Vasilyevich GAVRILYUK against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger , President , André Potocki, Paul Lemmens, judges ,
and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 January 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Vasilyevich Gavrilyuk , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Vinnitsa . The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Lutkovska , from the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant ’ s complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his observations. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.
By letter dated 26 June 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 1 June 2012 and that no extension of time had been requested. His 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 July 2012. 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 Mark Villiger Deputy Registrar President
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
