FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35025/05
by Yuriy Andriyovych SHCHERBAK
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 September 2005,
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, Mr Yuriy Andriyovych Shcherbak, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Krasnyy Lyman. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 8 August 2003 the Krasniy Lyman District Court of Donetsk Region (Краснолиманський міський суд Донецької області) ordered the Krasniy Lyman Transport Repair Company (Краснолиманське орендне ремонтно-транспортне підприємство), municipal enterprise, to pay the applicant 2,733.50 Ukrainian hryvnas.
This judgment became final and was enforced on 2 November 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 8 August 2003. He also invoked Article 8 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 2 November 2007 the applicant informed the Court that he wanted to withdraw the application since the judgment of 8 August 2003 had been enforced in full.
The Court notes that the applicant does not wish to pursue his application, 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 case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy