FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20647/08
INTERTRANS, ZAT
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 November 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Helena Jäderblom,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 April 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Intertrans, ZAT, was a Ukrainian company based in Kyiv.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant company complained under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the prolonged non-enforcement of the domestic decisions in their favour.
The application was communicated on 11 February 2010 to the Government under the procedure covered by the pilot judgment Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009.
According to the information available in the official internet database The Unified State Registry of Legal Entities in Ukraine (ЄДРПОУ) on 27 September 2011 the applicant company was liquidated, without any legal successor, as insolvent.
On 26 August 2014 the Court invited the applicant company by letter to confirm their legal status.
By letter of 17 September 2014 the applicant’s representative confirmed the information available to the Court that the applicant company had been liquidated.
THE LAW
The Court observes that on 27 September 2011 the applicant entity was liquidated as insolvent without any legal successor and without any indication that any other body or person (such as a former shareholder) is entitled to any rights or obligations which may continue.
The Court notes that this may constitute an “other reason” for which “it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention provided “respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto” does not require otherwise, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention.
In the light of the fact that the claim was pecuniary in nature and that it is a subject of a well-established case law (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine cited above) the Court finds no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require it to continue the examination of the application in respect of the applicant (for contrast see, for example, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 27, ECHR 2003‑IX, and Tehrani and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08, § 56, 13 April 2010).
Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. Zupančič
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy