FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 68317/17
Rayisa Oleksiyivna PORYADYNSKA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 May 2025 as a Committee composed of:
Gilberto Felici, President,
Diana Sârcu,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 September 2017,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Ms Rayisa Oleksiyivna Poryadynska, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1993. Her current whereabouts are unknown. The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr V.I. Melnychuk and Mr G.V. Tokarev, lawyers practising in Strasbourg and Kharkiv respectively.
2. The case concerns various issues under Articles 3, 5, 8, 14 and 34 of the Convention, in particular as regards the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant, the lack of an effective investigation, the conditions of her detention and the care provided to her, and the lawfulness and justification of her detention.
3. On 11 April 2017 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and fraud and subsequently placed in detention. During her detention the applicant exhibited mental health problems. Owing to the fact that her mental health was deteriorating, a forensic psychiatric examination was ordered on 28 September 2017.
4. On 2 October 2017 the Court applied Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and instructed the Government to provide the applicant with the appropriate medical care in detention.
5. On 7 November 2017 the forensic medical experts found that the applicant had mental health issues and recommended that she be admitted to a medical facility for psychiatric treatment.
6. On 11 November 2017 the applicant was released from the detention facility on expiry of the court’s detention order. After her release, the applicant’s state of health deteriorated again and she was admitted to a psychiatric hospital. She stayed in that hospital for in-patient treatment on several occasions from 13 November 2017 to at least 12 June 2019.
7. After the applicant’s release from the detention facility, her lawyer lodged a complaint concerning her ill-treatment while in detention, that is between 7 and 11 November 2017. According to the applicant, the investigation was unsuccessful.
8. On 1 March 2018 the interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was lifted.
9. In 2023 the Court asked the applicant’s representative Mr Melnychuk to inform it on whether the applicant maintained her application and to provide an update on any developments in the case. In April 2023 Mr Melnychuk stated that he had been unable to establish contact with the applicant. He submitted a copy of the domestic court’s decision of 31 August 2023 taken within the framework of the criminal proceedings against her, according to which the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown to the authorities and she had been placed on a list of wanted persons.
10. On 20 November 2023 and 26 February 2024 Mr Melnychuk stated once again that he had not been able to establish contact with the applicant. The defence lawyer who represented the applicant in the domestic criminal proceedings had no information about the applicant’s whereabouts either. A visit to the applicant’s registered address in Mykolayiv revealed that the applicant and her relatives no longer lived there.
THE LAW
11. The Court takes note of the information from Mr Melnychuk that he is not in contact with the applicant and that he has no information about her whereabouts. It also takes note of the fact that the applicant’s defence lawyer has also had no contact with the applicant and that the authorities have placed her on a list of wanted persons. In this connection the Court reiterates that it is important that contact between the applicant and his or her representative be maintained throughout the proceedings. Such contact is essential both in order to learn more about the applicant’s particular situation and to confirm the applicant’s continuing interest in pursuing the examination of his or her application (see Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece, no. 16643/09, § 124, 21 October 2014, and, mutatis mutandis, Ali v. Switzerland, 5 August 1998, § 32, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑V).
12. In the present case the Court observes that the applicant did not maintain contact with her lawyers and failed to keep them informed of her place of residence or to provide them with another means of contacting her. Accordingly, it considers that it can conclude on that basis that the applicant has lost interest in the proceedings and no longer intends to pursue the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see V.M. and Others v. Belgium (striking out) [GC], no. 60125/11, § 36, 17 November 2016 and further references therein).
13. The Court furthermore considers, on the basis of the available material, that the subject matter of the present case, although relying, among others, on the complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, relates to repetitive issues on which the Court has developed well-established case-law (see, among many other authorities, Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, 6 September 2007; Kaganovskyy v. Ukraine, no. 2809/18, 15 September 2022; and K.K. v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 79412/17, 7 November 2024). In this connection, 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.
14. 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 June 2025.
Martina Keller Gilberto Felici
Deputy Registrar President