CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 mai 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s64C69EF9 { width:181.43pt; 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 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 35548/02 by Lyudmila Ivanovna GAVRILINA against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22   May   2005 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 ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 September 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, Ms Lyudmila Ivanovna Gavrilina, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk. She was represented before the Court by Mr   I.A.   Voron, a lawyer practising in Dniprodzerzhynsk. 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. In 1999 and 2001, respectively, the applicant instituted two separate sets of proceedings in the Zavodskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk against the Ukrmetalurgremont Joint Stock Company, a State-owned enterprise, seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. By judgments of 16   November   1999 and 26   October   2001, the court awarded the applicant UAH 6,889.40 [1] in salary arrears and other payments. On 19 October 2000 the same court suspended the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 16   November   1999 until 1   January   2001. The applicant did not appeal against the decision of 19   October   2000. The judgments have been enforced in part and the applicant was paid UAH 1,031.94 [2] . The judgments remain to a large extent (UAH 5,857.46 [3] ) unenforced. COMPLAINTS   The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments in her favour. She invoked Article   6   §   1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 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 14 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 failed to respond to a registered letter dated 31 January 2006, which her representative 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   [1] .     Around 1,119   euros – “EUR”. [2] .     Around EUR   168. [3] .     Around EUR   951.