FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24499/04
by Aleksandr and Tatyana POYUTA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 December 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrR. Maruste,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 June 2004,
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 applicants, Mr Aleksandr Ivanovich Poyuta (“the first applicant”) and Mrs Tatyana Aleksandrovna Poyuta (“the second applicant”), are Belarus nationals, who live in the village of Struga, Belarus. The first applicant was born in 1953 and the second applicant did not specify the date of her birth. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs V. Lutkovska and Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 June 2002 the Torez Town Court ordered the State Enterprise “Torezke Shakhtobudivelne Pidpryemstvo” to pay the first applicant UAH 12,669.92[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
On the same date the Torez Town Court ordered the State Enterprise “Torezki Centralno Elektromekhanichni Maisterni” to pay the second applicant UAH 3,031.71[2] in salary arrears.
On 12 February 2004 the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice informed the applicants that the judgments could not be enforced due to the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.
By August 2005 the judgments in the applicants’ favour were enforced.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained about the State authorities’ failure to enforce the judgments of the Torez Town Court of 17 June 2002. They invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants also alleged a violation of Articles 1, 4, 5, and 8 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour.
THE LAW
Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaints on 1 March 2006. On 20 March 2006 the applicants were invited to submit their observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicants have failed to do so. Moreover, they have failed to respond to a registered letter dated 7 July 2006, warning the applicants of the possibility that their 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 applicants do 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 EUR 2,111.
[2]. Around EUR 505.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy