FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16449/04
by Ivan Efimovich KOLOSOVSKIY
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrK. Jungwiert,
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 21 April 2004,
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 Ivan Efimovich Kolosovskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1940 and lives in the town of Pershotravensk. 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 6 September 2002 the Pershotravensk Town Court ordered the Dniprovska State Mine to pay the applicant UAH 60,533.48[1] in occupational disability arrears and other payments.
On 16 October 2002 the Ternivka Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
The judgment of 6 September 2002 was fully enforced on 4 July 2005.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of the Pershotravensk Town Court of 6 September 2002. 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 1 March 2006. On 20 March 2006 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 a registered letter dated 13 October 2006, which he received on 26 October 2006, warning the applicant 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
RegistrarPresident
[1] Around EUR 10,086.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy