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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 43396/02 by Grigoriy Ivanovich GUDYM against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 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,   Mrs   R. Jaeger, judges, and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 November 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 Grigoriy Ivanovich Gudym, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Kukta. 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 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zavodskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk against the Dneprodomnaremont Joint Stock Company (the “DDR”), a State-owned enterprise, seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. By decision of 31   July   2001, the court awarded the applicant UAH 4,381.12 [1] in salary arrears and other payments. On 30   April   2002 the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the DDR. In   2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zavodskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk against the DDR, seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. On 14   June   2002 the court refused to consider the applicant’s claim. The applicant did not appeal against this decision. The judgment of 31   July   2001 has been enforced in part and the applicant was paid UAH   2,567.16 [2] . The judgment remains to a large extent unenforced (UAH 1,813.96 [3] ). COMPLAINTS The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 31   July   2001. He invoked Articles   6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention. The applicant also complained under Article 4   §   1 of the Convention that he had been subjected to slavery due to the fact that his work had not been remunerated. 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 25   June   2005. On 11   July 2005 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, neither the applicant’s representative nor the applicant have responded to the registered letters dated 22   November   2005, which they received on 29   and 30 November 2005, respectively, warning the applicant 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.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President [1] .     Around 703   euros – “EUR”. [2] .     Around EUR   412. [3] .     Around EUR   291.