FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28905/04
by Dmitriy Vasilyevich DERGILYOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 July 2004,
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, Mr Dmitriy Vasilyevich Dergilyov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1932 and lives in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs V. Lutkovska and Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
By decisions of 23 May and 7 October 2003, the Novogorodivskiy Town Court (the “Novogorodivskiy Court”) ordered the Novogorodivska State Mine (the “Mine”) to pay the applicant UAH 5,672.05[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
In July and November 2003, respectively, the Novogrodivskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgments.
In December 2003 the Novogorodivskiy Court changed the debtor in the enforcement proceedings and ordered the Selidvugillya State Enterprise to pay the applicant the awards of 23 May and 7 October 2003.
In January 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogorodivskiy Court against the Bailiffs’ Service, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgments in his favour. On 11 March 2004 the court rejected his claim, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs’ Service. On 20 May 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court. The applicant appealed against these decisions in cassation.
By 15 February 2006 the decisions of 23 May and 7 October 2003 in the applicant’s favour were enforced in full.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the State authorities’ failure to enforce the judgments of the Novogorodivskiy Town Court of 23 May and 7 October 2003. He invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints on 1 March 2006. On 20 March 2006 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, he has failed to respond to a registered letter dated 7 July 2006, warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court 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 examination of this application to be continued.
Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
[1]. Around EUR 954.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy