Source: http://www.shaimaaatalla.com/vb/showthread.php?t=15700&s=2cdd503351c4568fa9166b38fdf32699&p=30144
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:17:48+00:00

Document:
The application was lodged by Ms Svetlana Pavlovna Rogalevich, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1951. She was represented before the Court by Mr V. Koval, a lawyer practising in Lyubashevka, the Odesa Region. According to the most recent information provided by the applicant’s lawyer on 10 May 2005, she was serving a seven years’ imprisonment sentence at the Odesa Colony expiring on 16 September 2009. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention of unfairness of the criminal proceedings against her were 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 her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 8 September 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 29 June 2010 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. This letter was received by the applicant on 16 September 2010. However, no response has been received.
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.
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

References: V. 
 § 1
 § 3
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
in fine