CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 16 mars 2010

.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. 38095/04 by Ganna Mykolayivna KAPSHUK against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16   March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Renate Jaeger,   Karel Jungwiert,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,   Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 October 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The application was lodged by Ms Ganna Mykolayivna Kapshuk, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Magdalinivka. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   Yuriy Zaytsev. On 2 March 2009 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint under Article 2 of the Convention concerning the lack of effective investigation into the disappearance of her daughter. By a letter of 6 March 2009 the applicant was informed about the aforementioned decision and was invited to appoint a lawyer for her representation in the proceedings before the Court by 3 April 2009. The letter remained without reply. By another letter dated 11 May 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was reminded about the necessity to be legally represented at that stage of the proceedings. She was notified that the deadline for her to appoint a lawyer had been extended until 31 May 2009. As confirmed by the post office, the applicant received this letter on 16   May 2009. However, there has been no response from her. On 21 July 2009 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit her observations, together with any claims for just satisfaction, in reply by 17 September 2009, either with or without assistance of a lawyer. The applicant failed to comply. By a letter dated 30 October 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 17 September 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. Her 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. While the applicant received this letter on 3   November   2009, as confirmed by her signature on the post receipt, she did not respond. THE LAW The Court considers 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