CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 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 } .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 } .s9FE6B50C { width:200.28pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 49140/06 by Andrey Nikolayevich SUKHORUKOV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16   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 2 November 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The application was lodged by Mr Andrey Nikolayevich Sukhorukov, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1976 and is detained in Donetsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   Yuriy Zaytsev. On 4   June 2009 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of his detention during certain periods in 2006. Having received the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the aforementioned complaint, on 27 October 2009 the Court forwarded them to the applicant and invited him to submit his own observations by 8   December 2009. By a letter of 27 November 2009 the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Government’s observations and requested an extension of a month of the time allowed for submission of his reply to them. On 15 December 2009 the Court informed the applicant that his request had been granted. The new time-limit was 16 January 2010. The Court received no further correspondence from the applicant. By letters dated 5 March and 31 May 2010, sent respectively by registered and ordinary post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired and that no further 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 Court did not receive any report from the post service as regards the delivery of its letter of 5 March 2010 sent by registered post. There has been no response from the applicant. 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