FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8169/03
by Roman Grigoryevich MATVIYCHUK
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 December 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrR. Maruste,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 February 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Roman Grigoryevich Matviychuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1980 and lives in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the “Novogrodivskaya” Mining Company - a State-owned enterprise - to recover salary arrears.
On 21 February 2002 the Novogrodivskyy Town Court ordered the Mining Company to pay the applicant UAH 2,074.41 in salary arrears and compensation for their delayed payment. This judgment was not appealed against and became final.
In May 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court complaining about the failure of the Novogrodivskyy Bailiff’s Service to enforce the judgment of 21 February 2002. He also asked the court to attach and sell the property of the Mining Company to cover its debts.
On 14 June 2002 the court rejected his complaints as being unsubstantiated. On 2 September 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 14 June 2002 and upheld the judgment. On 27 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal as being unsubstantiated.
By 12 May 2004 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 21 February 2002 given in his favour. He also complained under Article 2 § 1 that his right to have a decent standard of living had allegedly been infringed.
THE LAW
Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints on 2 February 2004. On 5 April 2004 the applicant submitted his observations in reply together with his just-satisfaction claims. On 9 August 2005 the Government informed the Court that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced in full. On 9 September 2005 the applicant was requested to comment on the Government’s submissions. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, he has failed to respond to a registered letter dated 23 May 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy