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 } .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 } .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 } .s867F9C1B { width:175.28pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 43918/04 by Yuriy Aleksandrovich BYCHKOV 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 3 December 2004, 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 decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Yuriy Aleksandrovich Bychkov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, 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 4 August 2003 the applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking. The applicant was already suffering from tuberculosis when he was sent to prison. Consequently, he was placed in the Medical Penitentiary No. 89 in the Dnipropetrovsk region. Following the medical evaluation of 11   May   2004, the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from tuberculosis of a degree amounting to the second disability group (see the Relevant domestic law part). The applicant’s parents requested on several occasions that the applicant be released as suffering from a terminal disease. On 18 October 2004 the Medical Directorate of the Department of the Execution of Punishments refused these requests, on the ground that the applicant’s illness did not fall within the list of diseases which form the basis for immediate release under the Ministry of Health’s Ruling. The applicant’s parents alleged that he had not received proper treatment, in particular that during his custody his weight had fallen from sixty to thirty-six kilograms. On 1 April 2005 the Leninskyy District Court released the applicant from the obligation to serve his sentence. On 5 April 2005 he was released from prison. COMPLAINT The applicant complained about his conditions of detention in the Medical Penitentiary No. 89. In particular he challenged the adequacy of medical care afforded to him in this facility. He referred in substance to Article 3 of the Convention. THE LAW By a letter dated 27 January 2006 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 13 March 2006. By letters dated 19 May 2006 and 3 October 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 13 March 2006 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. It is not clear whether the applicant has ever received any of these letters. No correspondence has been received from the applicant since 29 March 2005. 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