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. 38531/05 by Sergiy Georgiyovych STETSENKO and Antonina Sergiyivna STETSENKO 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 12 October 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The application was lodged by Mr Sergiy Georgiyovych Stetsenko, and Ms Antonina Sergiyivna Stetsenko, Ukrainian nationals, who live in Genichensk, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev. The applicants (editors of a local newspaper) complained under Article 10 of the Convention about violation of their right to freedom of expression, i.e. right to criticise the professional activity of a public industry manager. The applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. The only correspondence from the applicants was received on 21 October 2005. By letters dated 29 July 2010, sent by registered post to three different addresses, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 5 May 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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 applicants received one of the letters on 6 August 2010. Two other letters were returned to the Court as unknown . No response has been received. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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