European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Aleksandr Aleksandrovich MAYOROV v Ukraine - 45668/07 [2010] ECHR 2065 (16 November 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2065.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 2065
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
45668/07
by Aleksandr Aleksandrovich MAYOROV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 November 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 5 October 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Mayorov, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Kryvyy Rig. He is represented before the Court by Mr P. V. Goliver, a lawyer practising in Krivoy Rig. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
The application mainly concerned the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
Notice of the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings was given to the Government which submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 16 October 2009. By a letter of 3 November 2009 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 15 December 2009. However, the applicant failed to do so. Moreover, he failed to respond to a registered letter dated 1 February 2010 warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list. According to the acknowledgement of receipt slip, that letter was received by the applicant’s lawyer on 9 February 2010.
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
