CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 novembre 2011

.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 } .s4954B46 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF5C64699 { width:201.29pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 36171/04 by Memet TAYFUR against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15   November 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Mark Villiger, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   André Potocki, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar. Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 September 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Memet Tayfur, is a Turkish national who was born in   1964. At the time of the introduction of his application he lived in Ukraine. His present place of residence is unknown. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   Yuriy Zaytsev, succeeded by Ms Valeria Lutkovska. The applicant complained, in particular, about his detention and alleged ill-treatment by the police in the framework of the criminal proceedings instituted against him in Ukraine in 2004. He has never given any factual update since then, apart from mentioning, in a letter of 13 December 2007, that he had been released from detention on 15   December 2005, without further details. On 7 December 2009 the applicant appointed Turkish lawyers residing in Turkey to represent him in the proceedings before the Court. By a registered letter of 21 April 2010 the Court requested them to give an update on the applicant’s situation since 2004 and to submit additional documents. On 29 April 2010 both lawyers signed in acknowledgment of receipt but did not respond to the letter. On 20   September 2010 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 9 of the Convention concerning his alleged ill-treatment and the conditions of his detention. On 12 January 2011 the Government sent their observations to the Court. They were not sent to the applicant (see below). On 18 January 2011 the applicant’s lawyers wrote to the Court that they had limited opportunity to contact him in Ukraine and that they were not able to submit any information about the case. On 7 February 2011 the President of the Section decided, under Rule   36   § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court, that the aforementioned lawyers appointed by the applicant could no longer act as his representatives. That decision was taken having regard, in particular, to the fact that the advocates in question had no knowledge of the case, no command of the Ukrainian, English or French languages, no access to relevant documents, and, as confirmed by them in their correspondence with the Registry, no regular contact with the applicant. By letters dated 7 February and 6 May 2011, sent by registered post to the applicant’s only known address in Ukraine (other than the detention facility from which he had been released long time before), the Court informed him about the removal of his representatives and invited him to appoint another representative. 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. Following the applicant’s failure to retrieve these letters, the post office returned both of them to the Court. 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   Mark Villiger Deputy Registrar   President