European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Anatoliy Mikhaylovich FELENKO v Ukraine - 35188/05 [2011] ECHR 1385 (6 September 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1385.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1385
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
35188/05
by Anatoliy Mikhaylovich FELENKO
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Mark
Villiger, President,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Ann
Power, judges,
and
Stephen Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 September 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Mikhaylovich Felenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Feodosiya. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention. He further complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) that his detention pending trial was unlawful. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (b) that the conditions of his detention made it impossible for him to prepare his defence.
Notice of the complaints under Articles 3 and 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 10 March 2010. By a letter of 26 April 2010 the applicant was invited to designate a representative by 28 May 2010 and to submit his observations together with any claims for just satisfaction by 9 June 2010. However, the applicant failed to do so. Moreover, he failed to respond to a registered letter dated 29 July 2010 warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list.
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 Mark Villiger
Deputy Registrar President