FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2657/04
by Vladimir Ivanovich MELNIKOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrR. Maruste,
MrsR. Jaeger, judges,
and Ms C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 November 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 Vladimir Ivanovich Melnikov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Lysychansk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Lutkovska.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1998 the applicant instituted two separate sets of proceedings in the Lysychansk Town Court against the Melnikov State Mine, seeking recovery of salary arrears. By decisions of 15 May and 23 December 1998, the court awarded the applicant UAH 2,172.87[1] in salary arrears.
On 16 February 2004 the applicant was informed by a letter from the Bailiffs’ Service that the judgments in his favour were not executed due to the lack of funds of the debtor.
According to the Government, on 27 October 2004 the judgments in the applicant’s favour have been enforced in full.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained in substance under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour. The applicant also complained under Article 4 § 1 of the Convention that he had been subjected to slavery due to the fact that his work had not been remunerated.
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 25 June 2005. On 11 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 not responded to a registered letter dated 31 January 2006, which he received on 8 February 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 353 euros.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy