CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 avril 2014

.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 } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB81E279F { width:179.94pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 25309/06 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich TERESHCHENKO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 1   April 2014 as a   Committee composed of:   Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,   Ann Power-Forde,   Helena Jäderblom, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 June 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Tereshchenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1966. At the time of lodging his application he was held in a detention facility. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by police officers and there had been no effective investigation in that regard. Relying on Article 6 §   1 of the Convention the applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonable. He further complained under Article 6   §§   1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the courts had failed to question all the witnesses. The applicant also raised other complaints under the Convention. On 21   November 2012, the application was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By the letters dated 22 August 2013, sent by registered post to the prison where the applicant was serving his sentence as well as to his home address, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 3 July 2013 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 sent to the prison was returned back to the Court, with the note on the envelope that the applicant had been released. The Court has not received any reply to the letter sent to the applicant’s home address, nor any other correspondence from the applicant. 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 Registrar   President