CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 septembre 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .s5CDFCC53 { width:229.12pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 28582/04 by Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych BORODIN against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13   September 2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 June 2004, 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 Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych Borodin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1949 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine. He is represented before the Court by Ms O. Demydyuk, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mrs   V.   Lutkovska. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is a judge of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal. On 21   December   2001 the Kyiv Pechersky District Court awarded the applicant UAH 2,407.44 [1] against the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine for salary arrears and other payments. The judgment was not appealed and became final. On 12   March   2002 the Kyiv Pechersky District Court awarded the applicant a further UAH 616.19 [2] in compensation. According to the Government, on 15 December 2004 the State Judicial Administration transferred the necessary funds to pay both judgment debts to the bank account of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal. On 22   December 2004 the applicant officially refused to receive the money and it was therefore used for payments to other judges. COMPLAINT The applicant originally complained under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgments given in his favour. 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 18 February 2005. On 10   March   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 1 July 2005 and received by the applicant’s representative on 9   July   2005, warning him 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. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President   [1] Around EUR 370 [2] Around EUR 95