CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 15 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 } .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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sE7562383 { width:43.99pt; display:inline-block } .s3657B7F1 { width:137.25pt; display:inline-block } .sE13E8F27 { width:41.66pt; display:inline-block } .s10601D17 { width:203.26pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 25439/02 by Yelena Petrovna PYATAKOVA against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and Ms C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 July 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 applicant, Ms Yelena Petrovna Pyatakova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1958 and lives in the city of Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs V.   Lutkovska. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 4   January   1995 the applicant purchased a flat from Mrs   S. The applicant alleges that Mrs   S, in violation of the purchase contract, refused to vacate the flat. I.     Civil Proceedings In October   1996 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leningradskyy District Court of Kyiv, seeking the eviction of Mrs   S. from the applicant’s flat. On   16   September   2001, following several reconsiderations of the case, the Svyatoshynskyy District Court of Kyiv (the former Leningradskyy District Court of Kyiv) found for the applicant and ordered the eviction of Mrs   S. together with her minor daughter from the flat. On   18   April   and 23   October 2002, respectively, the Kyiv City Court of Appeal and the panel of three judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 16   September   2001. The applicant maintained that, in the course of the proceedings, Mrs   S. had been absent from a considerable number of the court hearings and that she had lodged a large number of court motions and requests. On 6   June   2002 Mrs   S. was evicted from the flat. II.     Criminal Proceedings In 1999 the applicant lodged with the Leningradskyy District Police Office a criminal law complaint against Mrs   S. for fraud. On 23   March   1999 the police officer refused to start a criminal investigation into the matter. The applicant did not challenge this decision before the national courts. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in her case. The applicant further complained about a violation of her right to enjoy her possessions, alleging that she had been prevented, for a considerable period of time, from having access to her flat. She invoked Article   1   of   Protocol   No.   1. The applicant finally complained under Articles   6   §   1 and   13 of the Convention about the failure of the domestic authorities to initiate criminal proceedings against Mrs   S. for fraud. 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 19 September   2005. On 13 October 2005 the applicant was invited to submit her observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, she has not responded to a registered letter dated 31   January   2006, which she received on 7   February   2006, warning the applicant of the possibility that her 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.   Claudia WESTERDIEK   Peer LORENZEN   Registrar   President