SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 67761/01
by KHLEBOKOMBINAT No. 2
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 September 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrGaukur Jörundsson,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsW. Thomassen,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 10 August 2000,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a legal entity, the Khlebokombinat No. 2 factory, and is situated in the city of Zaporizhia. It is specialised in the production and sale of bread-related products.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
During the period 1997-1998 the applicant supplied bread and bread-related products to the State institutions responsible for the enforcement of sentences (hereinafter “State penitentiaries”), namely: State penitentiaries Nos. Ya/Ya 310-20 (Я/Я 310-20), Ya/Ya 310-55 (Я/Я 310-55), Ya/Ya 310-99 (Я/Я 310-99) and Ya/Ya 310-181 (Я/Я 310-181), managed by the State Department for the Execution of Sentences.
On 12 May 1999 the applicant lodged complaints with the Arbitration Court of the Zaporozhsky Region against the State, seeking performance by the State of its contractual obligations with respect to debts owed to the applicant and recognised by the State penitentiaries.
Various procedures ensued, terminating on 16 January 2001 with the decision of the Higher Arbitration Court of Ukraine dismissing the applicant’s claims as it had not proved that the Law of Ukraine on the State Budget of Ukraine provided for the repayment of debts owed by penitentiary institutions.
COMPLAINTS
Without referring to any specific Article of the Convention, the applicant complains about the lack of effective access to a court for the consideration of its claims and the lack of effective remedies with respect to the recovery of its possessions.
The applicant further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the infringement of its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions.
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 3 September 2002. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to submit its observations in reply. Moreover, it has failed to respond to any further communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 11 March 2003, warning the applicant of the possibility that its 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.
T.L. EarlyJ.-P. Costa
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy