FIFTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 25486/03
by Aleksandr Vladimirovich SHAVEL
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 August 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
	Peer Lorenzen, President,
	Rait Maruste,
	Volodymyr Butkevych,
	Renate Jaeger,
	Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
	Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
	Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 July 2003,
Having regard to the partial decision of 8 January 2007,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Vladimirovich Shavel, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Ivankovchi, Khmelnitskiy Region, Ukraine. He was represented before the Court by Mrs Vagina Natalia, a lawyer practising in Khmelnitskiy, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 12 July 2001 the applicant was apprehended on suspicion of aggravated murder. During the preliminary investigation he confessed that he and the other suspects killed Mr B.
On 15 July 2001 the Khmelnitskiy City Court (hereinafter – the City Court) ordered the applicant’s arrest.
On 20 July 2001 the Khmelnitskiy Regional Court of Appeal (hereinafter – the Court of Appeal) this ruling.
On 11 September 2001 the City Court extended the period of the investigation and the applicant’s detention to four months.
On 17 September 2001 the Court of Appeal this ruling.
On 9 November 2001 the City Court extended the period of the investigation and the applicant’s detention to five months and on 11 December 2001 to six months.
On 9 January 2002 the investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case-file.
On 27 March 2002 both the applicant and his lawyer finished consulting the case-file.
On 5 June 2002 the case was referred to the Court of Appeal.
On 2 August 2002 the court rejected the applicant’s motion for his release. According to the applicant, the court refused to examine the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention on remand between 27 March and 5 June 2002.
On 27 November 2002 the Court of Appeal remitted the case for additional pre-trial investigation. The court refused to lift the preventive measure of detention.
On 11 February 2003 the Supreme Court upheld this ruling.
On an unspecified date the additional investigation was completed and the case was referred to the Court of Appeal.
On 26 October 2004 the Court of Appeal remitted the case for additional pre-trial investigation. The court also released the applicant under the obligation not to leave his place of residence.
During the period from 26 October 2004 and till the present time the investigative authorities six times terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant for lack of evidence (on 30 March 2005, 19 May 2005, 25 July 2005, 25 September 2005, 25 January 2006 and 2 April 2006). All these rulings were subsequently quashed by the Khmelnitskiy Regional Prosecutor.
The proceedings are still pending.
COMPLAINTS
 The applicant alleged that his detention had been unreasonably long and unlawful. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention.
He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.
The applicant further invoked Article 3 complaining about ill-treatment and detention conditions in the custody.
THE LAW
In his application form the applicant provided the postal address of his lawyer who represented him before this Court. The applicant did not provide this Court with his own full permanent address.
By letter dated 29 May 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s lawyer, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 16 July 2007.
By letter dated 20 September 2007, sent by registered post to the applicant’s lawyer, the latter was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 16 July 2007 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 the response from the applicant or his lawyer was received by the Court.
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 of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
	Claudia Westerdiek	Peer Lorenzen
	Registrar	President