CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 avril 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7BF4101 { width:166.26pt; display:inline-block } .s4AA8DB22 { width:161.61pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 52966/07 Oleg Dmitriyevich NIKOLAYENKO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 April 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,   Ann Power-Forde,   Angelika Nußberger, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 October 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Oleg Dmitriyevich Nikolayenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Mariupol. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   Valeria Lutkovska. The applicant complained, in particular, about his alleged ill-treatment by the police, restrictions on his right to legal defence and unfairness of his trial. On 17 May 2010 the applicant informed the Registry of his new address for correspondence. It was a civil address instead of the prison, from which he had apparently been released. On 3 May 2011 the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention were communicated to the Government. The applicant, in turn, was invited to appoint a legal representative in the proceedings before the Court. This request of the Registry, as well as the repeated one of 23 June 2011, remained without reply. On 5 October 2011 the Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations having previously appointed an advocate for his representation. The applicant neither appointed a representative nor replied to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 12 December 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 16 November 2011 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. As confirmed by the applicant’s signature on the post receipt, he received this letter on 30 December 2011, but has not responded to date. 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   Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Section Registrar   President