FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18658/06
by Larisa Vladimirovna BELYAYEVA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 April 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Ms Larisa Vladimirovna Belyayeva, a Ukrainian national born in 1958 and residing in Kramatorsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
The applicant complained under Articles 1, 3 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of 23 October 1997 given in her favour against a State educational institution.
On 14 January 2009, the President of the Fifth Section decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to communicate the application to the Government of Ukraine.
By letter dated 3 June 2009 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 15 July 2009.
By letter dated 9 October 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 15 July 2009 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. The applicant received this letter on 16 October 2009. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Claudia Westerdiek	Peer Lorenzen
	Registrar	President