[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Vitaliy Vyacheslavovych PRZHEVALSKYY v Ukraine - 12203/04 [2011] ECHR 873 (24 May 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/873.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 873

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 12203/04
by Vitaliy Vyacheslavovych PRZHEVALSKYY
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24 May 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 February 2004,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Vyacheslavovych Przhevalskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Ternopil. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.

The applicant complained about unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him and lack of access to lawyer. He also raised other complaints.

Notice of the complaints concerning fairness of the criminal proceedings and access to a lawyer was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 18 January 2010. By a letter of 23 February 2010 the applicant was invited to designate a representative by 23 March 2010 and to submit his observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 6 April 2010. However, the applicant failed to do so. Moreover, he failed to respond to a registered letter dated 29 July 2010 warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list.

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 Boštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy Registrar President