CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s30B3B394 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:left } .sC51CE4F1 { width:213.58pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s344D54E6 { width:202.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 42322/13 Mykola Stepanovych MARCHENKO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12   September   2017 as a Committee composed of:   Erik Møse, President,   Yonko Grozev,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Anne-Marie Dougin, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 June 2013, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Mykola Stepanovych Marchenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Kyiv. He was represented before the Court by Mr O.Y. Fedorov, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. 2.     The applicant’s complaints under Article 5 of the Convention were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), who were represented by their Agent, most recently Mr I.   Lishchyna. 3.     On 26 January 2016 the applicant was invited, by simple letter sent to his initial representative’s address, to submit, by 10 March 2016, observations on the admissibility and merits of the application in reply to those of the Government, together with his claims for just satisfaction. As no reply was received, on 26 September 2016 another letter was sent to the applicant’s then representative, reminding him that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. 4.     On 27 December 2016 the applicant’s representative’s law firm sent a letter to the Court requesting an extension of the time-limit for submission of observations for two months because a new lawyer, Mr Fedorov, was now dealing with the case and needed time to prepare. The President of the Section agreed, exceptionally, to set 15 February 2017 as the new time-limit for submission of the observations. On 18 January 2017 the applicant’s new lawyer, whose postal address was identical to that of the previous one, was informed of this decision by simple letter. The Court received no response. On 19 April 2017 another reminder, with another reference to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, was sent by registered mail to the same address. The latter letter was returned to the Court with the postal remark “non réclamé”. THE LAW 5.     The Court repeatedly attempted to contact the applicant’s representatives at the address indicated by them, but to no avail. The Court was not informed of any change of address. 6.     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. 7.     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 5 October 2017.   Anne-Marie Dougin   Erik Møse Acting Deputy Registrar   President