CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 mai 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s13F94BE1 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sD0F961A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s64C69EF9 { width:181.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 29463/02 by Mariya Oleksandrivna VOTINTSEVA against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. B otoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 July 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Mariya Oleksandrivna Votintseva, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1945 and lives in the town of Trostianets, the Sumy region, Ukraine. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 3   April   1998 the applicant brought an action in the Trostyanets District Court of the Sumy Region (hereafter “the District Court”), claiming that her former husband, Mr L., had lost the right to occupy the apartment. The proceedings ended on 2   March   2005, when the Supreme Court gave the final decision rejecting the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation against the judgment of the District Court of 7   June   2004, and the decision of the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal of 27   September   2004. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. She also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy against the excessive length of judicial proceedings in the domestic legal system. THE LAW Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaint on 30   June   2005. On 13   July   2005 the applicant was invited to submit her observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, she has failed to respond to a registered letter dated 20   October   2005 and received by the applicant in person on 25   October   2005, warning her of the possibility that her case might be struck out of the Court’s list if she did not reply. Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 examination of this application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President