FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41096/07
KAPITALNYY REMONT SVERDLOVYN
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ann Power-Forde,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 September 2007,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Kapitalnyy Remont Sverdlovyn, was a Ukrainian company based in Dolyna. It was represented before the Court by Mr V. Tytych, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kultchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant company complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the prolonged non-enforcement of the domestic decisions in their favour. They further raised a complaint under Article 14 of the Convention.
The application was communicated on 27 January 2010 to the Government under the procedure covered by the pilot judgment Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009.
On 17 February 2011 the Government informed the Court that the applicant company had been liquidated as insolvent on 15 February 2010 and no longer existed. Before the insolvency, the applicant company’s claim had been sold to a new creditor. The new creditor’s application to the Court is pending under no. 25731/13.
THE LAW
The Court observes that on 15 February 2010 the applicant entity was liquidated as insolvent without any legal successor.
The Court notes that this may constitute an “other reason” for which “it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention provided “respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto” does not require otherwise, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention.
In the light of the fact that the claim was pecuniary in nature and that it is a subject of a well-established case law (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine cited above) the Court finds no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require it to continue the examination of the application in respect of the applicant (for contrast see, for example, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 27, ECHR 2003‑IX, and Tehrani and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08, § 56, 13 April 2010).
Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in so far as it has been brought by that entity.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy