European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Artem Nikolayevich KUTSAK v Ukraine - 34218/05 [2010] ECHR 2154 (23 November 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2154.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 2154
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Applications no.
34218/05 by Artem Nikolayevich KUTSAK
and no. 34421/06 by
Mykola Mykolayovych SEMENOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 23 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Ganna Yudkivska, judges,
and
Stephen Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above two applications lodged on 7 September 2005 and 8 August 2006 respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applications were lodged by two Ukrainian nationals, Mr Artem Nikolayevich Kutsak, who was born in 1979 and lives in the Chernivtsi Region, and by Mr Mykola Mykolayovych Semenov, who was born in 1956 and lives in the Donetsk Region (“the applicants”). Mr Semenov was represented before the Court by Mr V. Skyba, a lawyer practising in Donetsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in their cases. They also raised other complaints under Articles 1, 3, 5, 6 § 1, 13, 17 and 18 of the Convention.
The applicants’ complaints about the length of the proceedings were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their observations in reply. The applicants did not submit their observations.
By letters dated 30 June 2010, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 26 April 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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 applicants did not respond to the Court’s letters.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.
The Court further considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications and to strike them out of its list of cases.
Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger
Deputy Registrar President
