CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 septembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6ADF1EA6 { width:167.26pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 21082/09 Mykhaylo Mykolayovych ALISIYENKO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24   September 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   André Potocki, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 April 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Mykhaylo Mykolayovych Alisiyenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Plyokhiv. He suffers from the highest officially recognised degree of disability and has been found legally incapacitated. His mother, Mrs Tamara Aleksiyenko, represented the applicant in the proceedings before the Court. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 about the length of the proceedings in a dispute with private persons over the right to a flat and about the lack of an effective remedy in that regard. He further complained under Articles 1, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the outcome of the proceedings. Finally, without providing any specific explanations, the applicant also complained of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant’s complaints concerning the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy were communicated to the Government, who submitted on 2 November 2011 their friendly settlement declaration. It was forwarded on 22 November 2011 to the applicant, who was invited to inform the Court whether he accepted the terms of the friendly settlement. No reply was received. By letter dated 6 June 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that no reply had been received to the previous correspondence and he was given a new time-limit to inform the Court whether he wished to maintain his application. The applicant’s attention was drawn to the fact that in the absence of his reply, the Court may conclude that he was not interested in pursuing the application and strike it out of its list of cases. The letter came back to the Court on 24 June 2013 with the mention that the applicant had not been found at the address to which the letter had been sent. The Court has not received any communication from the applicant since April 2009. 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   Angelika Nußberger   Deputy Registrar   President