CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 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. 5782/05 by Yuriy Sergeyevich MAKSIMOVICH against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30   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 30 January 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The application was lodged by Mr Yuriy Sergeyevich Maksimovich, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Mariupol (“the applicant”). The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He also alleged a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) and Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention in that the proceedings against him were unfair. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings was 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 observations in reply. The applicant failed to do so. By letter dated 6 August 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 16 June 2010 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 the letter on 14 August 2010. However, he did not reply to it. 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