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 } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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. 21405/02 by Vasiliy Egorovich TRYASORUKOV 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 21 September 2001, 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 Vasiliy Egorovich Tryasorukov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Kharkiv. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 9 January 1998 and 29 January 2001 the Moskovsky District Court of Kharkiv awarded the applicant a total of UAH 1,671 [1] against the “Kharkovsky Electro-Mehanichny Zavod” State Company in salary arrears. According to a certificate issued by the Moskovsky District Execution Service of Kharkiv, in April 2002 the judgments remained unenforced due to the debtor’s lack of funds. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of non-enforcement of the court 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 9 December 2004. On 22 December 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 18 May 2005 and received by the applicant on 28   May 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 the case 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] .     EUR 260.