FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 10429/06, 2850/07, 9001/07, 39757/07
by Nikolay Grigoryevich PERIDRIY and 3 others
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 27 February 2006 (first application), 26 December 2006 (second application), 13 February 2007 (third application) and 31 August 2007 (fourth application),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applications were lodged by Mr Nikolay Grigoryevich Peridriy (first applicant), Mr Petro Ivanovych Leshcheok (second applicant), Ms Oksana Volodymyrivna Boyko (third applicant) and Ms Nataliya Gennadiyivna Musulega (fourth applicant). All the applicants are Ukrainian nationals. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
The applicants complained under various provisions of the Convention about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour against the State entities or companies. Some of them also complained about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of such non-enforcement.
On 8 September 2008 the third and fourth applications and on 14 January 2009 the first and second applications were communicated to the Government.
The Government submitted observations which were forwarded to the applicants who were invited to submit their observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 30 March 2009 (third and fourth applicants) and 15 July 2009 (first and second applicants). The applicants failed to do so. They also did not respond to the Court's letters of 21 September and 9 October 2009 warning the applicants of the possibility that their cases might be struck out of the Court's list.
THE LAW
At the outset, the Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.
The Court finds that, in the circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications and to strike them out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy