CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 novembre 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 } .s6FFDDACB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:13.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s9FE6B50C { width:200.28pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 8193/04 by Valeriy Ivanovich DOVZHENKO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2   November 2010 as a Committee composed of: Rait Maruste, President, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 February 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The application was lodged by Mr Valeriy Ivanovich Dovzhenko, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Mariupol, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about his ill ‑ treatment by police officers and under Article 5   §§   1 (b) and 5 of the Convention about his unlawful deprivation of liberty and failure to obtain compensation in this respect. He further raised other complaints under Articles 6   §   1, 13 and 34 of the Convention. The applicant’s complaints concerning his ill-treatment, unlawful deprivation of liberty and failure to obtain compensation were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received. The last correspondence from the applicant was received on 15 May 2006. By letter dated 9 June 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 4 December 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 this letter on 15   June 2010. However, no response has been received. THE LAW 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 strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Stephen Phillips   Rait Maruste Deputy Registrar   President