European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Yegor Gennadyevich BARYSHEV v Ukraine - 17363/06 [2010] ECHR 1463 (14 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1463.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1463
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
17363/06
by Yegor Gennadyevich BARYSHEV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Rait
Maruste,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
Ganna
Yudkivska,
judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek,
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 April 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Yegor Gennadyevich Baryshev, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1972. His actual place of residence is not known. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. I. Gordiyenko, a lawyer practising in Dnipropetrovsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The applicant complained about his medical treatment in detention for the aftermaths of some past head injuries, the lawfulness, length and conditions of his detention, as well as the length of the criminal proceedings against him.
On 1 December 2006 the Court applied Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and indicated to the Government that the applicant be hospitalised. The case was given priority under Rule 41. On the same date the Court decided to communicate to the Government the applicant's complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the alleged inadequacy of his medical treatment and the conditions of his detention.
In 2006 the applicant underwent inpatient treatment in the Kharkiv Neurosurgery Institute.
In 2007 both parties submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the communicated part of the application.
At the time of the events, the applicant was detained in the Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the Kharkiv SIZO”). No correspondence from the Court was ever sent to that address. The Court corresponded with the applicant through his parents or his lawyer.
On 3 September 2009 the President of the Chamber decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court, that additional complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 and Article 6 § 1 (length of the proceedings) be also communicated to the Government.
On 30 December 2009 the Government submitted further observations on the admissibility and merits of that part of the application.
On 20 January 2010 those observations were sent to the applicant's lawyer, who was invited to submit, on behalf of the applicant, observations in reply together with any additional claims for just satisfaction, by 9 March 2010.
Having received no reply, the Registry of the Court informed, by registered letters of 27 April 2010, both the applicant's lawyer and his parents that the deadline for submitting observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. Their 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.
On 18 May 2010 the applicant's lawyer signed the acknowledgment of receipt but did not respond to the letter.
On 4, 12 and 27 May 2010 the applicant's parents were notified by the post office of the arrival of the said letter. Following their failure to retrieve it, on 5 June 2010 the post office returned the letter to the Court.
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.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
