FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23160/04
by Mariya Tymofeyevna SERDYUK
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 12 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 applicant, Ms Mariya Tymofeyevna Serdyuk, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1939 and lives in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine. 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 21 November 2002 the Novogorodivskiy Town Court (the “Novogorodivskiy Court”) ordered the Novogorodivska State Mine (the “Mine”) to pay the applicant UAH 4,165.26[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
On an unspecified date the Novogrodivskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogorodivskiy Court against the Bailiffs’ Service, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgment of 21 November 2002. On 18 August 2003 the court rejected her claim, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs’ Service. It held that the judgment 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. On 15 April 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court. The applicant appealed against these decisions in cassation.
By 18 January 2006 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the State authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of the Novogorodivskiy Town Court of 21 November 2002. She invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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 1 March 2006. On 20 March 2006 the applicant was invited to submit her observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, she has failed to respond to a registered letter dated 7 July 2006, warning the applicant of the possibility that her 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 does 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 694.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy