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 } .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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 22799/03 by Vladimir Andreyevich KRAVETS 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   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mr S. Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 June 2003, 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 Andreyevich Kravets, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1944 and lives in the town of Gorlivka, the Donetsk region, Ukraine. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 1   August   2002 the Tsentralno-Miskyi District Court of Gorlivka ordered the State Mine “Lenina” to pay the applicant UAH   9,118.75 [1] and UAH   2,734 [2] in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the Gorlivka City Social Insurance Fund to pay the applicant UAH   2,685.31 [3] in pension arrears. The court also ordered the latter to pay the applicant a monthly pension allowance of UAH   447 [4] for an unlimited period of time. On 24   February   2004 the Donestk Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that the judgment could not be enforced due to the debtors’ lack of funds. According to the Government, the judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Tsentralno-Miskyi District Court of Gorlivka on 1   August   2002. 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 16   December   2004. On 2   February   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 25   April   2005 and which he received on 6   June   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. Naismith   J.-P. Costa Deputy Registrar   President [1] .     Around 1,486 euros – “EUR”. [2] .     Around EUR   446. [3] .     Around EUR   438. [4] .     Around EUR   73.