BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Volodymyr and Iryna LYSENKY v Ukraine - 6644/02 [2010] ECHR 747 (27 April 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/747.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 747 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
6644/02
by Volodymyr and Iryna LYSENKY
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Rait
Maruste,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
Mykhaylo
Buromenskiy, ad
hoc judge,
and
Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 January 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicants, Mr Volodymyr Fedorovych Lysenko and Mrs Iryna Volodymyrivna Lysenko, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1925 and 1958, and live in Konotop and in Kyiv, respectively. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.
The applicants complained that the domestic authorities had failed to act in a timely and effective manner in investigating the theft of their property and in prosecuting the person who had assaulted them. They further alleged that the length of the criminal investigation into the theft of their property was unreasonable and that they had not been granted compensation for the delays which occurred. They also complained that they had been unable to receive compensation for the stolen property. They refer to Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7.
The applicants' complaints concerning length of the proceedings and the infringement of their property rights were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who also submitted their own observations. The last communication from the applicants was received in December 2006.
By letters dated 10 December 2009, sent by registered post to both applicants, they were requested to inform the Court about any further developments in their case. The applicants' 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 first applicant received this letter on 18 December 2009. However, no response has been received to date. The letter to the second applicant was returned as “inconnu”.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President