FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15773/08
Oleksandr Mykytovych PEZHENKO
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 8 February 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Oleksandr Mykytovych Pezhenko, was a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1937 and lived in Komunar.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant mainly complained of the prolonged non-enforcement of the domestic decisions in his favour. These complaints were communicated to the Government for information.
By letter dated 4 April 2011, the Government informed the Registry that the applicant had died. A copy of the Government’s letter was sent to the applicant’s address for comments. No reply was received.
By letter sent on 16 July 2013 by registered post to the deceased applicant’s address, the reader was notified that no reply had been received to the Court’s previous correspondence and a new time-limit for any comment was given. The reader’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The letter came back to the Court as “Inconnu” (undelivered as the addressee was not found).
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant has died and that no heir has requested permission to pursue the application. In the circumstances it finds that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) 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 case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy