FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 48062/06 Pavel Viktorovich DAVIDENKO against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 September 2012 as a committee composed of:

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

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 November 2006,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Pavel Viktorovich Davidenko , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk . He is represented before the Court by Mr Dmytro Dubtsov , a lawyer practising in Dnipropetrovsk . 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 following his arrest he was ill-treated by the police. He further alleged that he was illegally held in police custody between 7 and 12 November 2005, contrary to Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. He also claimed that between 7 and 12 November 2005 he had no access to a lawyer. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his conviction was unfounded.

His complaints above 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 own observations. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

By letter dated 24 November 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant ’ s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 15 September 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ’ s 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 was returned as not claimed 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 Villi ger              Deputy Registrar President