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 >> Olga Dorofeyevna OREKHOVA v Ukraine - 27218/06 [2012] ECHR 874 (10 May 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/874.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 874 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
27218/06
Olga Dorofeyevna OREKHOVA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10 May 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Mark
Villiger,
President,
Karel
Jungwiert,
André
Potocki, judges,
and
Stephen Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 May 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Olga Dorofeyevna Orekhova is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1937 and lived in Mykolayiv.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings brought by her against the individuals convicted for the murder of her son.
Following the communication of the application to the Government and the Registry’s request to the applicant for some information, on 21 January 2012 the post office returned to the Registry its letter undelivered, with a note that the applicant had died.
The Court has not received any requests for the application to be pursued in the applicant’s stand.
THE LAW
The Court considers that these circumstances lead to the conclusion that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) 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