CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 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 } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; 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 } .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 } .s32A1C891 { width:209.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; 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. 3266/03 by Larysa Mykolayivna VYNOKUROVA against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8   November 2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström ,   Ms   D. Jočienė ,   Mr   D. Popović, judges , and Mr S. Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 December 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, Mrs   Larysa Mykolayivna Vynokurova, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1963 and currently resides in the city of Kyrovograd, Ukraine. She is represented before the Court by Mr Andriy Vasylyovych Boridchenko. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is a private entrepreneur. On 26   December   2001 the Leninsky District Court of Kyrovograd ordered the Tax Police of the Kyrovograd Regional State Tax Inspection to pay the applicant UAH   28,770 [1] in compensation. This decision was not appealed against and became final on 26   January   2002. On 26   June   2002 the applicant lodged with the Kirovskyi District Court of Kyrovograd an administrative law complaint against the State Treasury of Ukraine for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. On 17   July   2002 the court refused to consider the applicant’s complaint as it was outside its jurisdiction. According to the Government, the judgment in the applicant’s favour was not enforced due to its unclear wording and the changes in the Law on the State Budget. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Leninsky District Court of Kyrovograd of 26   December   2001. 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 6   February   2004. On 2   March   2004 the applicant was invited to submit her observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. By two separate letters of 17   March   2005 sent to the addresses of the applicant and her representative, the Court warned them of the possibility that the applicant’s case might be struck out of the Court’s list. On 4   May   2005 the letter of 17   March   2005 was returned as the applicant was no longer at that address. The applicant’s representative has neither responded to the letter of 17   March   2005 nor corresponded with the Court since 17   November   2003, 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. Naismith   J.-P. Costa Deputy Registrar   President [1] .     Around 4,687   euros.