FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29822/05
by Volodymyr Grygorovych TERESHCHENKO
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 July 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Volodymyr Grygorovych Tereshchenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1937 and lives in the town of Chasiv - Yar. He was represented before the Court by Mr Vasyl Petrovych Mokhnenko, a lawyer practising in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
By judgment of 14 September 2000 the Artemovsk Court awarded the applicant 2,122.53[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in disability allowance arrears, to be paid by the applicant’s former employer, the State company Chasiv-Yarskoye spechupravleniye po remontu oborudovaniya, zdaniy i sooruzheniy.
Relying on Articles 1 and 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the above judgment.
By letter dated 10 October 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any comments together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 28 November 2008.
By letter dated 6 May 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was informed that the deadline for submission of the comments had expired. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
On 23 May 2009 the applicant’s representative received the Court’s letter. No response has been received to date.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
[1] Around EUR 455
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy