CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 septembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF5C64699 { width:201.29pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 31631/04 Nataliya Petrivna KOT against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25   September 2012 as a committee composed of:   Mark Villiger, President,   André Potocki,   Paul Lemmens, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 August 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Nataliya Petrivna Kot, is a Ukrainian national born in 1968 and living in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention about the inability to obtain an occupancy voucher for her room and to have her actual residence registered with the relevant domestic authorities. She further complained that her inability to obtain residence registration restricted her freedom to choose her place of residence, which was contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that her civil claims had been rejected by the domestic courts in an arbitrary fashion. Her complaints concerning the refusal to legalise her housing situation and to register her current residence were communicated to the Government under Articles 6 §   1, 8 and 14 of the Convention and under Article 2 §   1 of Protocol No. 4. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 10 November 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the completed authority form had expired on 27 July 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. The letter had been received at the applicant’s designated address on 30   November 2011. However, no response followed. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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