CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 septembre 2015

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E304268 { width:190.42pt; display:inline-block } .sAE540E25 { width:21.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7DB8BC41 { width:183.09pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 44253/09 Volodymyr Ivanovych PANASENKO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 1   September 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 August 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS, COMPLAINTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Volodymyr Ivanovych Panasenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1959 and is detained in Lviv. He was represented before the Court by Mr A.P. Bushchenko, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant, together with two other persons, was found guilty of, among other crimes, organisation of attempted murder of the director of the company where he had worked as a senior manager, and the murder of a   schoolgirl who had died in an arranged explosion of a car. The applicant was convicted to life imprisonment and his property was confiscated. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the Lviv SIZO had been contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, he had not been provided with adequate medical care, he had been detained in a   cell with detainees who regularly smoked and his transportation between the detention facility and a court had been inappropriate. He further raised other complaints under Article 6   §§   1, 2 and 3 (b) and (c) and Article 34 of the Convention. On 21 November 2012 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaint raised under Article 3 of the Convention. On 19 March 2013 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit observations in reply. In his observations of 30 July 2013 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant did not consider the issues related to Article 3 of the Convention to be the most important and that he was ready to withdraw his claims under this head. By letter of 21 August 2013 the applicant was invited to inform the Court whether he wished to unconditionally withdraw his complaint under Article   3 of the Convention which had been communicated to the parties. By letter of 12 September 2013 the applicant confirmed the withdrawal. THE LAW 1.     In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list. 2.     As to the other complaints, having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of the list of cases in so far as it concerns the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 24 September 2015.   Milan Blaško   Angelika Nußberger   Deputy Registrar   President