CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 octobre 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 } .s4C4F9E80 { width:206.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 19206/12 Svitlana Volodymyrivna VISHCHYK against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20   October 2015 as a Committee composed of:   André Potocki, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Síofra O’Leary, judges, and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 April 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Svitlana Volodymyrivna Vishchyk, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1971 and is detained in Kyiv. She was represented before the Court by Mr V.V. Ryzun, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that she had not been provided with adequate medical treatment during her detention. She further complained under Article 5   §§   1 (c), 3 and 4 of the Convention that her detention in custody had not been based on reasoned court decisions and amounted to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 5   §§   1 (c) and 3 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s lawyer, who was invited to submit the applicant’s observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 5 November 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 22 May 2014 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’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 Registry’s letter returned back on 22 January 2015 as “non-reclamé”. No other correspondence from the applicant party has been received. 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 12 November 2015.   Milan Blaško   André Potocki Deputy Registrar   President