FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7814/07
by Anatoliy Ivanovych LEBEDYNETS
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 February 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Ivanovych Lebedynets, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Zolochiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 17 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a judgment of 30 November 2005 given in his favour against a company partly owned by the State. He also alleged that the proceedings had been unfair.
By a letter dated 19 December 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 30 January 2009.
By a letter dated 23 March 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 30 January 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the case.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy