CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 20 mai 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDB6B63EE { width:176.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 16243/02 by Oleg Petrovych OVCHARUK against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Karel Jungwiert,   Volodymyr Butkevych,   Renate Jaeger,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar . Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 August 2000, 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 partial decision of 11   December   2006, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr   Oleg   Petrovych   Ovcharuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Novi Petrivtsi. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr   Y.   Zaytsev. A.     The circumstances of the case Since 1992 the applicant has been registered as suffering from impulsive personality disorder. On several occasions he underwent in-patient treatment. On 28   December   1999 the Kyivskyy District Court of Odessa ( Київський районний суд м.   Одеса ) found the applicant guilty of aggravated robbery, sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment and imposed pecuniary sanctions. The applicant, who had not been legally represented, appealed in cassation. On 29   February   2000 the Odessa Regional Court ( Одеський обласний суд ) upheld the judgment of 28   December   1999. The hearing before the cassation court was not attended either by the applicant or by any party representing his interests, whereas the prosecution made oral submissions. Allegedly, the applicant was not notified of the hearing in good time in spite of the repeated attempts of his parents to obtain relevant information. On 22   September   2000 the Presidium of the Odessa Regional Court allowed a supervisory protest lodged by its President and reduced the applicant’s sentence to six years’ imprisonment. Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to have the proceedings reopened and his conviction reviewed. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained about his and his representative’s inability to participate in the hearing before the regional court. He also complained about the alleged failure of the State authorities to provide him with free legal assistance. The applicant invoked Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (c) of the Convention. THE LAW By letter dated 10   April   2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 23   May   2007. By letter dated 21   June   2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 23   May   2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’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. On 26   June   2007 this letter was delivered to the applicant’s home and correspondence address indicated in his last letter of 30   December   2006. However, no response has been received. 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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. Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President