FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6983/04
by Vadim Alekseyevich KIRILIKHIN
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 November 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 30 January 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 Vadim Alekseyevich Kirilikhin, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in the town of Gorlivka. 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 30 August 2002 the Kalininskiy District Court of Gorlivka (the “Kalininskiy Court”) ordered the State Mine “Oleksandr-Zahid” to pay the applicant UAH 6,175.76[1] in salary arrears. It also ordered the Kalininskiy District Social Security Fund of Gorlivka to pay the applicant a monthly allowance of UAH 162.91[2], to be calculated from 1 May 2001.
On 31 January 2003 the same court awarded the applicant UAH 6,856.77[3] against the Kalinina State Mine in salary arrears and other payments. The court also ordered the Social Security Fund to pay the applicant a lump sum of UAH 1,029.59[4] in monthly allowance arrears and a monthly allowance of UAH 295.83[5], to be calculated from 1 January 2003.
On 9 October 2002 and 5 August 2003, respectively, the Kalininskiy District Bailiffs’ Service of Gorlivka instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgments.
Pursuant to the decisions of the Kalininskiy Court of 28 and 29 July 2003, the debtors were succeeded by the Artemvugillya State Enterprise.
The judgments remain unenforced.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the State authorities’ failure to enforce the judgments of the Kalininskiy District Court of Gorlivka of 30 August 2002 and 31 January 2003. 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 2 March 2006. On 31 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 two registered letters dated 13 October 2006 and 22 February 2007, 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 1,029.
[2]. Around EUR 28.
[3]. Around EUR 1,142.
[4]. Around EUR 172.
[5]. Around EUR 50.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy