SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14387/02
by Vasiliy Mironovich SHEVELYUK
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 June 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrR. Türmen,
MrV. Butkevych,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović , judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 February 2002,
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 Vasiliy Mironovich Shevelyuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1936 and currently resides in the village of Belitskoye, the Donetsk Region, Ukraine. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Lutkovska.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 15 August 2000 the Dobropolsky City Court ordered the State mine Belitskaya to pay the applicant UAH 26,017.34 in compensation.
On 1 April 2002 the Dobropolsky City Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the judgment was not enforced, as the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.
According to the Government, the applicant received the full amount awarded to him by the judgment of 15 August 2000 by instalments. On 5 September 2003 the Bailiffs' Service completed the enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Dobropolsky City Court of 15 August 2000.
THE LAW
Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaint on 25 September 2003. On 17 November 2003 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, he has failed to respond to a registered letter dated 17 March 2005 and received by the applicant on 24 March 2005, warning the applicant of the possibility that his 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.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy