SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29734/02
by Vasyl Petrovych GALYTSYA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18 May 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsA. Mularoni, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 July 2002,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vasyl Petrovych Galytsya, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1937 and lives in the village of Mizhgirya in the Transcarpathian region. The respondent Government were represented by their Agents - Mrs V. Lutkovska, succeded by Mrs. Z. Bortnovska.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
From 20 October 1999 onwards, the applicant had rented half of a shop from the company of which he was a shareholder. The other half was rented by Ms. Ch.
On 9 March 2000, the applicant concluded an agreement with the shop owner for its purchase.
Ms. Ch. instituted civil proceedings against the applicant and the company before the Mezhigirsky District Court of the Transcarpathian region to challenge this agreement.
On 1 August 2002, the court found against the applicant and struck down the agreement. The court stated in its reasoning that the rights of the third party, Ms. Ch., had been disregarded when the agreement had been concluded.
On 13 February 2002, the Zakarpatsky Appellate Court upheld that decision.
On 7 March 2002 the Ukrainian Parliament passed a law amending the Code of Civil Procedure. The law reduced the time-limit for a cassation appeal from three months to one month. It came into force on 4 April 2002.
On 18 April 2002, the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Ukraine, which was rejected on 6 June 2002, by a ruling of a Judge of the Supreme Court for being out of time.
Further proceedings ensued, culminating in a judgment on 9 October 2003 by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, which found in part for the applicant, as the lower courts were considered to have misinterpreted the amended time-limit provisions.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant maintained that his appeal in cassation was rejected arbitrarily and in the absence of clear reasons. The applicant complained in substance of a violation of his right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He further complained under the same Article of the erroneous application of the relevant domestic law by the national courts in deciding his property dispute. Finally he invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with respect to the outcome of the property dispute.
THE LAW
Notice of the application was given to the Government, which submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints on 5 August 2003. On 29 August 2003, the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the applicant failed to do so. Moreover, he failed to respond to a registered letter from the Registry of the Court dated 18 November 2003 and received by the applicant on 28 November 2003, warning him 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy