FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22430/05
by Sergey Valeryevich ZHUKOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 21 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:
and Stephen PhillipsDeputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 June 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Sergey Valeryevich Zhukov, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Yevpatoriya. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by police officers and that no effective investigation had been carried out into the matter. The applicant further complained under Article 3 of the Convention that during his detention in the Yevpatoriya Temporary Detention Centre he was held in an overcrowded cell and that no adequate medical assistance was provided to him. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention was unlawful.
The application was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was, invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry's letter.
 By letter dated 4 June 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the his observations had expired on 30 April 2010 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. On 14 July 2010 the letter was returned to the Court as unclaimed.
THE LAW
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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Stephen Phillips	Rait Maruste	
	Deputy 	President