FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36136/05
by Oleksandr Volodymyrovych VASYLENKO
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 19 October 2010 as a Committee composed of:
	Mark Villiger, President,
	Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
	Ganna Yudkivska, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 September 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Oleksandr Volodymyrovych Vasylenko, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The applicant's complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention concerning the lack of legal assistance in the criminal proceedings against him were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was, invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry's letter.
By letter dated 8 July 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the his observations had expired on 15 June 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant'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. Neither the return receipt nor any response from the applicant was received by the Court.
THE LAW
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.
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.
	Stephen Phillips	Mark Villiger
	Deputy Registrar	President