FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36778/02
by Aleksey Alekseyevich CHERNYUK
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
and Mr J.S. Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 August 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is Mr Aleksey Alekseyevich Chernyuk, a citizen of the Russian Federation of Ukrainian origin, who was born in 1957. He resided in Magadan, the Russian Federation. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 December 2000 the applicant went to the village of his deceased wife for her burial on 18 December 2000. He left his daughter with his sister, Ms M.O.I. (maiden name Ms M.O.V.), and made an arrangement with his parents-in-law that he would leave his daughter with them from August to October 2001 (for a total period of ten months).
On 15 January 2001 the applicant and his son left for Magadan.
On 25 September 2001 the applicant’s parents-in-law (Ms O.M.R. and Mr I.F.R., born in 1935 and 1931, respectively) instituted adoption proceedings against the applicant, seeking to deprive him of his parental rights and requesting permission to adopt their granddaughter. The applicant was not informed about the date and time of the hearing of this case.
On 28 September 2001 the Bershad City Court (Бершадський місцевий суд), in the absence of the applicant, allowed the request of the grandparents and ordered the daughter’s adoption by them. The court also ruled that the girl’s last name and patronymic be changed to that of her grandfather, and that the information about her father be changed in the birth certificate of 1 August 2000. It observed, in particular, that the applicant was abusing alcohol and for more than ten months had not been taking care of his daughter.
On 2 November 2001 the Bershad State Administration Tutelage and Supervision Board allowed the applicant’s parents-in-law to adopt his daughter.
On 25 December 2001 the Vinnytsia Regional Court of Appeal refused to consider the applicant’s appeal since he was not a party to the initial proceedings before the first instance court.
On 22 April 2002 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court refused to initiate cassation proceedings, finding no evidence of substantive or procedural law infringements.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that he was unable to participate in the adoption proceedings and lodge an appeal against the first-instance court decision. He alleged that the domestic courts erred in the assessment of the facts and in their application of the law. In particular, they disregarded the fact that he had taken care of his daughter, supported her financially and intended to continue taking care of her. Also, he submitted that his parents-in-law were elderly and unemployed, which made it impossible to take proper care of a young child. He also alleged that the decision of the Tutelage Board of 2 November 2001 to allow the adoption of his daughter had been made on the basis of judicial decisions which were unsubstantiated, not being supported by any corroborating evidence that he was unable to take care of his daughter. He alleged that the Ukrainian authorities blatantly violated his rights guaranteed by Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention. He further alleged that his parents-in-law do not allow him to see her daughter or to meet her.
THE LAW
Notice of the application was given to the Government on 14 February 2006. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaint on 11 May 2006. The applicant has failed to submit observations in reply. Moreover, he has failed to respond to further communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 17 October 2006 warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list if he failed to respond. No reply was received to it.
In these circumstances and in the absence of a serious indication that the applicant himself wishes to pursue the application, the Court, having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 further examination of this case. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy