CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 février 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6ADF1EA6 { width:167.26pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 42458/08 Olena Eduardivna FINK against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 19   February 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   André Potocki, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 August 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Olena Eduardivna Fink, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Donetsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were most recently represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy. The applicant complained, in particular, under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention about the police seizure of documents from her office related to her professional activities as an advocate, and about the lack of an effective domestic remedy to that regard. On 25 March 2010 the applicant informed the Registry of her new address for correspondence. On 20 May 2011 the application was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant at the address indicated by her. She was invited to submit her own observations. No reply however followed. By a letter of 12 December 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 8 November 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. Her 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. It is unclear whether this letter was served on the applicant. On 9 November 2012 the Registry sent another letter to the applicant, also by registered post, warning her once again of the strike-out possibility. It appears that this letter was dispatched to Donetsk. No confirmation of its delivery to the applicant is available. 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 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   Angelika Nußberger   Deputy Registrar   President