[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Vitaliy Pavlovich POLOZ v Ukraine - 42550/04 [2009] ECHR 317 (27 January 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/317.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 317

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 42550/04
by Vitaliy Pavlovich POLOZ
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 January 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 November 2004,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Pavlovich Poloz, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Kherson. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Smetana, a lawyer practising in Kherson. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 11 May 2002 the Kherson police, in the context of a “test purchase” (an undercover operation), bought drugs from the applicant.

On 17 May 2002, the applicant was arrested for trafficking in illegal drugs.

On 25 June 2003, following adversarial proceedings during which the applicant was represented by a lawyer, the Komsomolsky District Court of Kherson convicted the applicant of having unlawfully purchased, stored and sold drugs and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment.

On 13 January 2004 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal rejected the appeals as unsubstantiated.

On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that, in the criminal proceedings against him, he did not received a fair hearing in that he was not provided with an opportunity to question six witnesses whose evidence had been used against him. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 that the judges who were trying his case lacked independence and impartiality.

THE LAW

By a letter dated 21 May 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 7 July 2008.

By a letter dated 20 August 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 7 July 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’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. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 27 August 2008. However, no response has been received.

On 21 August copy of the letter of 20 August 2008 had been sent to the applicant by registered post. Neither the return receipt nor any response from the applicant was received by the Court.

On 22 September 2008 copy of the letter of 20 August 2008 had been again sent to the applicant by registered post. This letter was delivered at the applicant’s address on 29 September 2008. However, no response has been received.

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.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President