European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Vasyl Semenovych LOBAS v Ukraine - 50709/06 [2010] ECHR 1599 (21 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1599.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1599
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
50709/06
by Vasyl Semenovych LOBAS
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 21 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Rait
Maruste,
President,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
and
Stephen Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 December 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Vasyl Semenovych Lobas, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1952 and lives in the Kyiv Region. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The applicant mainly complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings to which he was a party. The applicant also raised other complaints under Articles 2, 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 relating to the proceedings at issue.
The complaint about the length of the proceedings was communicated to the Government, who submitted a friendly settlement proposal in the case. The proposal was forwarded to the applicant, who did not reply to it.
By letter dated 4 May 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was requested to inform whether he wished to pursue the application. The applicant'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. No reply was received either.
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 Rait Maruste
Deputy Registrar President
