CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 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 } .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 } .sEE508D3 { width:231.78pt; 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. 17687/02 by Anatoliy Vasiliyevich ZEMTSOV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22   November   2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   A.B. Baka , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 October 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 facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 25 September 2000 the Dzerzhynsky City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant UAH 3,839 [1] against the Novaya Coal Mine (a State owned entity, hereafter “the NCM”) in respect of moral and material damage suffered as the result of his unfair dismissal. On 8 June 2001 the City Court allowed the applicant’s claim against the NCM, awarding him UAH 1,443 [2] in compensation for failure to provide him with a job. On 10 July 2001 the City Court awarded the applicant compensation against the NCM in the sum of UAH 25,702 [3] for unpaid industrial disablement benefits. On 15 November 2001, following the appeal of the coal mine, the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. On 18 December 2001 the City Court awarded the applicant UAH 1,380 [4] against the NCM in salary arrears. All the above judgments became final and were referred to the Dzerzhynsky City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) for compulsory enforcement. On 29 July 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the decisions in his favour could not be immediately executed on account of the NCM’s lack of funds. The Bailiffs’ Service also indicated that the enforcement proceedings were impeded by the moratorium on the forced sale of property of State-owned enterprises, introduced by the 2001 Law. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the court decisions in his favour. The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the State had infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The applicant also invoked Articles 6 § 3 (c and e), 13, 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention, without developing any reasoning for such claims. 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 28 September 2004. On 14 October 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, 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. Dollé   A.B. Baka   Registrar   President [1]     approximately 633 euros (EUR) [2]     approximately EUR 240 [3]     approximately EUR 4,237 [4]     approximately EUR 230