CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 mai 2006

.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 } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .s47AD3890 { width:37.99pt; display:inline-block } .sCF65C0FF { width:163.98pt; display:inline-block } .sC1DFA444 { width:35.66pt; display:inline-block } .s13E32E28 { width:210.66pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 14614/03 by Nadezhda Petrovna ZHIDCHENKO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2   May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger, judges , and Mrs C . Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 April 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, Mrs Nadezhda Petrovna Zhidchenko, was a Ukrainian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Gorlovka, the Donetsk region. She died on 9 August 2005. The facts of the case, as originally submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The Savings Bank proceedings On 23 June 2000 the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Court of Gorlovka (hereafter “the District Court”) rejected the applicant’s claim for the recovery of her indexed deposits at the Savings Bank of Ukraine. 2.     The proceedings concerning the water supply In July 1999 the District Court awarded the applicant UAH 1,013.95 [1] against the Kommunalnyk State Water Supply Company (hereafter “the Company”) in compensation for the irregularities in the supply of water to the applicant’s apartment, as well as for moral damage. On 20 July 2000 the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that the awarded sum could not be paid due to the Company’s lack of funds. On 27 September 2001 the District Court rejected, as unsubstantiated, the applicant’s claim for compensation for inflation. On 27 December 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. It appears that the applicant failed to challenge these decisions before the Supreme Court due to the formal shortcomings of her cassation appeal. On 17 February 2005 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim against the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Bailiffs’ Service for failure to execute the court judgment in her favour. The court found no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs’ Service as the judgment could not be enforced due to the lack of funds on the Company’s bank account and the ban on the forced sale of the property of State-owned enterprises. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained about her inability to recover her indexed deposits from the Savings Bank of Ukraine. She invoked in substance Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant further complained about the lengthy non-execution of the court judgment given in her favour. She relied in substance on Article 6 § 1. The applicant also seemed to complain about the State’s refusal to compensate the inflation rate on the awarded sum. Finally, the applicant alleged that the amount of her pension was wrongly determined by the authorities. 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 and the proposal of friendly settlement on 7 July 2005. On 3   August   2005 the applicant was invited to submit her observations in reply. However, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had died on 9 August 2005. The Court notes that no heirs have made themselves known, expressing a wish to pursue the application. Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that there is no one who intends 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.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President 1.     EUR 143.98.