FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13862/06
by Mykola Ivanovych GURSKYY
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 February 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Mykola Ivanovych Gurskyy, is a Ukrainian national who lives in Lutsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 June 2003 given by the Lutsk Court.
On 15 October 2008, the President of the Fifth Chamber decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to communicate the application to the Government of Ukraine.
By a letter of 26 February 2009 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations in reply by 9 April 2009, together with any claims for just satisfaction. The applicant failed to reply.
By a letter of 6 May 2009, sent by registered mail, the applicant was reminded that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 9 April 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
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