CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 juin 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .sDB6B63EE { width:176.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 13712/02 by Valentyn Petrovych SULIM and Sergiy Petrovych SULIM against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24   June   2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Rait Maruste,   Karel Jungwiert,   Volodymyr Butkevych,   Renate Jaeger,   Mark Villiger,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 March 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 applicants, Mr Valentyn Petrovych Sulim and Mr Sergiy Petrovych Sulim, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1975 and 1979 respectively and live in the village of Desna, Chernigiv region, Ukraine. They are represented before the Court by Mr A. Stulikov, a lawyer practising in Slovyansk, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 7 June 2001 the first applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and a search was carried out in the applicants’ home. On 8 June 2001 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicants. On 11 June 2001 the first applicant was released after confessing to involvement in criminal activity. On 30 August 2001 the second applicant was arrested and subsequently released on 2 September 2001. On 5 September 2001 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of theft and subsequently remanded in custody. Their term of detention was extended several times and their applications for release were to no avail. On 20 January 2003 the Kozeletsky Town Court sentenced the first applicant to five years’ imprisonment for two episodes of theft and vehicle-taking. The second applicant was sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment for theft and vehicle-taking. On 31 July 2003 the Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of the second applicant for one episode of theft and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. The remainder of the first-instance decision was quashed and remitted for a further pre-trial investigation. The applicants’ continued detention was ordered. On 27 January 2004 the Supreme Court rejected an appeal on points of law against this decision by the first applicant. On 27 August 2004 the Nosiv Town Court ordered the applicants’ release on their undertaking not to abscond. By 15 July 2005 the criminal proceedings against the applicants were still pending. No further information about the proceedings is available. Civil proceedings brought by the applicants concerning their detention remained unsuccessful. COMPLAINTS The applicants lodged various complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention about their arrest and detention. The applicants further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them had been excessively long and unfair. THE LAW By a letter dated 1 August 2005 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants’ representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 16   September 2005. By letters dated 17 November 2005 and 11 April and 5 October 2007 sent by registered post, the applicants and their representative were notified that the period allowed for submission of observations by the applicants had expired on 16 September 2005 and that no extension of time had been requested. Their 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. There is no evidence that the applicants’ representative has received the letter of 17 November 2005. The applicants received the letters of 11 April and 5 October 2007 on 26 April and 16   October 2007 respectively. However, no response has been received. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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