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 } .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. 26617/03 by Nikolay Mitrofanovich KOPCHINSKIY 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 23 July 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 Nikolay Mitrofanovich Kopchinskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Torez, the Donetsk Region. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent - Mrs V. Lutkovska. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 7 November 2000 the Torez City Court awarded the applicant UAH   9,109 [1] against the Lutugina coal-mine (a State-owned enterprise) by way of benefit arrears for an industrial disease. On 22 April 2003 the Torez City Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be immediately executed due to the debtor’s lack of funds, the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of State-owned enterprises and a lien placed on the company’s assets to secure the payment of taxes. According to the Government, in May 2004 the award was paid to the applicant in full. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained about the non-execution of the court judgment given in his favour. He referred to Article   6   § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He further complained under Article   13 of the Convention about the lack of effective remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 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 6 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 24   May 2005, warning the applicant 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]     approximately 1,390 euros