SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5599/03
by Nikolay Vladimirovich STEPANOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8 November 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mr S. Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 January 2003,
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 Nikolay Vladimirovich Stepanov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Krasnoarmeysk, Ukraine.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 January 1999 the Labour Disputes Commission of the State Joint-Stock Company Novogrodovskaya mine (Комиссия по трудовым спорам ГОАО шахта 1/3 «Новогродовская») adopted two decisions by which it ordered the Novogrodovskaya mine to pay UAH 33,666.80[1] in salary arrears due to the applicant. On 16 April 1999 these decisions were sent for enforcement to the Selydivskyi Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы г. Селидово). On 14 June 2001 the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Novogrodovsky Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Новогродовского городского управления юстиции). On 8 November 2001 the applicant was paid UAH 300. On 18 February 2001 the applicant was paid another UAH 300.
In 2000-2001, by decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs’ Service was prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against it.
On 26 December 2001 the ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital was entrenched in the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.
In their observations of 11 January 2005 the Government informed the Court that, on 26 October 2004, the decision of 20 January 1999 in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the decisions of the Labour Disputes Commission in his favour. He also invoked, in substance, 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 11 January 2005. On 26 January 2005 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 21 April 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. NaismithJ.-P. Costa
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] At the material time EUR 5,135.61
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy