FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10635/02
by Petr Petrovich STOPA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrR. Maruste,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
andMrJ.S. Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 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 Petr Petrovich Stopa, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1943 and lives in the town of Lisichansk, Lugansk region.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 September 1999 the Lisichansk Town Court awarded the applicant UAH 3,215[1] against the Lisichanskugol State Company in salary arrears.
By the decision of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of 28 February 2001, the Lisichanskugol State Company was joined to the Novodruzhyvskaya coal-mine, which assumed the former’s debts.
According to a letter of the Lugansk Regional Department of Justice of 28 May 2002, the coal-mine’s property was secured to ensure the payment of taxes. Nevertheless, the Lisichansk Town Court ordered that 10% of its earnings be directed to repay salaries and other arrears. However, the funds thus provided were insufficient to pay the applicant.
On 11 July 2003 the Lisichansk Town Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the tax lien imposed on the coal-mine’s assets was still in force and that the attachment of its property was also banned by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, 2001.
The judgment given in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full on 28 December 2004.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the authorities’ failure to ensure the enforcement of the court’s judgment in his favour fully and in due time.
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 24 February 2005. On 29 March 2005 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Furthermore, he has not responded to two registered letters dated 3 October 2005 and 26 September 2006 (the latter received by the applicant on 10 October 2006).
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Moreover, 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.
Stephen PhillipsPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1]. EUR 474.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy