CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 15 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 } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 37707/02 by Viktor Leonidovich VOYTYUK against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15   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 Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 June 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 Viktor Leonidovich Voytyuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1939 and lives in the town of Krasnodon, Lugansk region, Ukraine. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant instituted proceedings in the Chervonozavodsky Local Court against his former employer, the State-owned “KhPO Proton” company, to recover salary arrears. On 19   February   2002, the court awarded the applicant UAH 9,974.77 [1] in compensation for salary arrears, travel expenses, and court fees. On 10 June 2002 the local department of justice informed the applicant that the debtor lacked funds and the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 26 November 2001. On 11   July   2002, the Chervonozavodsky Local Court decided that the enforcement of the judgment of 19   February   2002 should be conducted prior to the enforcement of other judgments against the same debtor, because the latter concerned debts created in 2000-2002, while the applicant’s case concerned debts created in 1987-1991. On 21   November   2002, the local department of justice informed the applicant that the debtor had been allowed by the court to pay its debts in instalments and, again, that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 26 November 2001. According to the Government the judgment in the applicant’s favour was fully enforced on 3 September 2003 and on that date the enforcement proceedings were terminated. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6   §   1 (in substance) and 13 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment 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 22 April 2005. On 11   May   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 1 July 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 no longer intends pursuing 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 further examination of this case. 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 1,425 euros (“EUR”)