SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22974/02
by Aleksandra Yegorovna YARTYMYK
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 October 2003 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrGaukur Jörundsson,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsW. Thomassen,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 May 2002,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Aleksandra Yegorovna Yartymyk, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1928 and resides in the village of Orlovka, the Donetsk Region, Ukraine.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 2001, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovsky City Court of Donetsk Region against the “Novogrodovskaya” Mining Company - a State-owned enterprise - to recover an unpaid invalidity pension for the years 1998-2000.
On 27 March 2001, the Novogrodovsky City Court found in favour of the applicant. However, the decision was executed only in part.
The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovsky City Court of Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovsky City Bailiffs’ Office for failure to execute the court decision in her favour. On 31 July 2001, the City Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs’ Office. The applicant did not appeal against the decision under the appellate procedure, but did so under the cassation procedure. On 28 December 2001, the panel of three judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal.
On 26 November 2002, the applicant requested the Novogrodovsky City Bailiffs’ Office to return the execution writ to her.
On the same day, the Bailiffs’ Office terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case on the ground that the applicant had withdrawn the writ of execution.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the court decision in her favour. She further complained that the existing situation infringed her right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, given her allegedly low standard of living.
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 19 February 2003. On 17 March 2003, the applicant was invited to submit her observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, she has failed to respond to any further communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 27 May 2003 and received by the applicant on 13 June 2003, warning the applicant of the possibility that her 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.
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