CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 février 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 83 February 2006 Grimaylo v. Ukraine (dec.) - 69364/01 Decision 7.2.2006 [Section II] Article 37 Article 37-1-c Continued examination not justified Refusal of applicant to get legal representation for proceedings before the Court: struck out   The applicant, who was suspected of involvement in smuggling, drug-trafficking, illegal storage of weapons and unlawful crossing of the State border, was detained on remand in January 1999 (his residence was also searched at the time). His numerous requests to the courts for release from custody were rejected, as was his complaint about the unreasonable length of his detention. It appears that the applicant's trial is still pending. The applicant complained under Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Following communication of the application to the Government, the President of the Second Section decided – in spite of the applicant's request to represent himself or to be represented by his wife – that a lawyer's participation was essential, given the complexity of the case from a legal and factual point of view. Several reminders were sent to the applicant by the Registry warning him that the case might be struck out of the Court's list if he did not comply with the President's decision. However, the applicant replied that he still wanted to represent himself, or alternatively that his wife be his representative before the Court. In the absence of appropriate legal representation of the applicant, it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Moreover, in accordance with Article 37(1) in fine , there were no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights which required the further examination of this case. Hence, the application of Article 29(3) was discontinued: struck out .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes