European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> RELIGIYNA GROMADA SVYATO-TROYITSKOYI PARAFIYI SELA MYLOSTIV v Ukraine - 39238/03 [2010] ECHR 201 (26 January 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/201.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 201
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
39238/03
by RELIGIYNA GROMADA SVYATO-TROYITSKOYI PARAFIYI SELA
MYLOSTIV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Rait
Maruste,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
Mykhaylo
Buromenskiy, ad
hoc judge,
and
Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above
application lodged on 28 November 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by a religious association, Religiyna Gromada Svyato-Troyitskoyi Parafiyi of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kyiv Patriarchate of Mylostiv (Релігійна громада Свято-Троїцької парафії Української Православної Церкви Київського Патріархату села Милостів). It was registered in 1995 and is situated in the village of Mylostiv in the Rivne region. It is represented before the Court by Mr S. Marynych, its prior and the chairman of the Parishioner’s Assembly. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The applicant’s complaints concerning Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. These observations were forwarded to the applicant, inviting it to submit its own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letters dated 12 June and 14 September 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of its observations had expired on 24 July 2009 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 applicant received the letter of 12 June 2009 on 16 June 2009. 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 by a majority
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President