CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 3 novembre 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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 30155/02 by Vladimir Viktorovich DERING against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 3   November 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 25 July 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 Vladimir Viktorovich Dering, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1953 and lives in the village of Gorodivka, the Donetsk region, Ukraine. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 3   May   2001 the Novogrodivka City Court ordered the Novogrodivska State Mine to pay the applicant UAH   6,947.64 [1] in salary arrears and other payments. On 21   May   2001 the Novogrodivka City Bailiffs’ Service commenced the enforcement proceedings. In August   2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. On 11   September   2001 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs. On 1   November   2001 and 22   February   2002, respectively, the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of 11   September   2001. According to the Government, the judgment debt of 3   May   2001 was paid to the applicant in instalments. On 13   May   2004 the Bailiffs’ Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings in view of the full enforcement of the judgment given in the applicant’s favour. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Novogrodivka City Court of 3   May   2001. He also alleged a violation of Articles   2   §   1 and 4   §   1 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment 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 complaint on 29   September   2003, 15   March and 19   May   2004. On 9   August   2004 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 8   April   2005, warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list. It is further observed that the applicant has not corresponded with the Court since 23   September   2002, the date on which the Court received the last letter from him. 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 1,132   euros – “EUR”.