FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35548/02
by Lyudmila Ivanovna GAVRILINA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 May 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrR. Maruste,
MrsR. Jaeger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 September 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, Ms Lyudmila Ivanovna Gavrilina, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk. She was represented before the Court by Mr I.A. Voron, a lawyer practising in Dniprodzerzhynsk. The Ukrainian Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Lutkovska.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1999 and 2001, respectively, the applicant instituted two separate sets of proceedings in the Zavodskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk against the Ukrmetalurgremont Joint Stock Company, a State-owned enterprise, seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. By judgments of 16 November 1999 and 26 October 2001, the court awarded the applicant UAH 6,889.40[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
On 19 October 2000 the same court suspended the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 16 November 1999 until 1 January 2001. The applicant did not appeal against the decision of 19 October 2000.
The judgments have been enforced in part and the applicant was paid UAH 1,031.94[2]. The judgments remain to a large extent (UAH 5,857.46[3]) unenforced.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments in her favour. She invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
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 14 September 2005. On 13 October 2005 the applicant was invited to submit her observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, she has failed to respond to a registered letter dated 31 January 2006, which her representative received on 7 February 2006, warning the applicant of the possibility that her 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 1,119 euros – “EUR”.
[2]. Around EUR 168.
[3]. Around EUR 951.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy