FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 34037/03
by Valeriy Alekseyevich KHOBATKOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger,
MrM. Villiger judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 September 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, Mr Valeriy Alekseyevich Khobatkov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1955 and lives in the town of Torez, Donetsk Region, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs V. Lutkovska and Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 July and 30 August 2000 the Labour Disputes Commission awarded the applicant UAH 10,232.66[1] against the Progress State Coal-Mine (the “PCM”) in salary and occupational disability arrears.
On 10 October 2000 the Torez City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings, which were interrupted on three occasions. From 14 July 2000 to 27 November 2000 all enforcement proceedings against the PCM were suspended pending the examination of its complaint about the allegedly unlawful actions of the Bailiffs. Following the local court’s dismissal of this complaint, the proceedings were renewed. In June 2001 they were suspended for unknown reasons. In May 2003 the proceedings were again suspended due to the PCM’s complaint against the Bailiffs. In August 2003 they were renewed.
On 28 March 2001 a substantial part of the debtor’s assets was attached by the Bailiffs. However its sale was barred by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, which banned the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State held at least 25% of the share capital. Nevertheless, the enforcement proceedings continued with respect to the PCM’s funds not covered by the moratorium.
In 2003-2005 the applicant was paid a total of UAH 8,938.26[2], the outstanding debt being UAH 1,294.4[3].
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the State authorities’ failure to enforce the decisions of the Labour Disputes Commission of 26 July and 30 August 2000 in due time. He invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application on 23 June 2005. On 18 July 2005 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, he has failed to respond to registered letters dated 17 November 2005 and 19 January 2006, warning him of the possibility that his 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 Registrar President
[1] Around USD 1,881.
[2] Around EUR 1,490.
[3] Around EUR 216.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy