FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22434/03
by Vera Antonovna GOSPODIDAY
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrR. Maruste,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 June 2003,
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 Vera Antonovna Gospodiday, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1935 and lives in the village of Velyki Sorochyntsi, Poltava region, Ukraine.
On 6 September 2001 the applicant was beaten by her neighbours, Mrs N. and Mrs L. They also took a bicycle which allegedly belonged to the applicant.
Criminal proceedings
On 8 January 2002 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings in the Myrgorodskyy District Court of Poltava Region against Mrs N. and Mrs L., and lodged a civil claim for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 17 January 2002 the court returned the applicant’s complaints for non-compliance with procedural requirements. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 4 February 2002 the Myrgorodskyy District Court sent the applicant’s appeal to the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal. The applicant states that she has been never informed about the outcome of her appeal. By a letter of 31 December 2004 the Myrgorodskyy District Court informed the applicant that it had no information about the consideration of her appeal.
Meanwhile, on 7 February 2002 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings in the applicant’s case as, according to the Criminal Code, such proceedings should have been instituted by the court following the applicant’s complaint. On 20 May 2002 police also refused to institute criminal proceedings following the seizure of a bicycle as it had been established that the bicycle belonged not to the applicant but to Mrs N.
On 9 April 2003 the applicant submitted another complaint to the court under the criminal procedure.
On 10 April 2003 the Myrgorodskyy District Court returned the applicant’s complaint for non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Civil proceedings
In June 2003 the applicant brought civil proceedings with the Myrgorodskyy Miskrayonnyy Court claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage inflicted to her by Mrs N. and Mrs L.
On 21 June 2003 the applicant lodged the present application with the European Court of Human Rights.
On 20 September 2004 the Myrgorodskyy Miskrayonnyy Court stayed the proceedings in the applicant’s case “until the decision of the European Court of Human Rights”. No further decision was taken in the applicant’s case by national courts.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of proceedings in her cases. In particular, she complained about the failure to consider her appeal against the decision of 17 January 2002.
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 23 February 2007. On 14 March 2007 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 8 June 2007, warning her of the possibility that her case might be struck out of the Court’s list if she did not reply. The Court’s Registry received no further correspondence from the applicant.
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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy