SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9507/03
by Igor Mikhaylovich MOLOCHEK
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 November 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 March 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 Igor Mikhaylovich Molochek, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1969 and lives in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kuybyshevskiy District Court against his former employer, the State-owned “Donetskuglestroy” company, to recover salary arrears. On 22 November 2000 the court awarded the applicant UAH 6,367.24[1] in salary arrears and compensation.
In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kirovskiy Local Court of Donetsk against another of his former employers, the State-owned “Lidievka” mining company, to recover salary arrears. On 19 October 2001 the court awarded the applicant UAH 1,021.26[2] in salary arrears and compensation.
By letters of 20 February and 19 March 2003, the applicant was informed by the Bailiffs’ Service that the judgments in his favour could not be enforced due to prohibitions imposed by the courts and the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 26 November 2001.
According to the Government the judgment of 22 November 2000 was fully enforced on 7 September 2004.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (in substance) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour.
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 22 April 2005. On 12 May 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 failed to respond to a registered letter dated 1 July 2005, warning him 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 no longer intends pursuing 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 further examination of this case. 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.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
[1] Around 910 euros (“EUR”)
[2] Around EUR 145
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy