CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 novembre 2009

.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. 16305/04 by Vera Mikhaylovna BURNUS against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17   November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Renate Jaeger,   Karel Jungwiert,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,   Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 April 2004, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Vera Mikhaylovna Burnus, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Kerch. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Yu. Zaytsev. On 10   November 2008 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint under Article 2 of the Convention concerning the lack of effective investigation into the death of her son. By a letter dated 2 April 2009 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 20 May 2009. By letters dated 24 June and 26 August 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 20 May 2009 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. The applicant received these letters on 30   June and 31   August 2009 respectively. However, no response has been received. THE LAW The Court notes that the applicant failed to reply to the Court’s letters of 2 April, 24 June and 26 August 2009 without any valid reason. It considers therefore that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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. Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President