CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 septembre 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 } .sE90BF664 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s2A429DC4 { width:201.96pt; display:inline-block } .s9F703587 { width:29.81pt; display:inline-block } .sB9531ABD { width:216.51pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 11419/03 by Aleksandra ANTONOVA and Lyubov TITARENKO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18   September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger ,   Mr   M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 March 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 applicants, a mother and a daughter, Mrs Aleksandra Antonova and Mrs Lyubov Titarenko, are Ukrainian nationals born in 1955 and 1978, respectively. They both live in Mariupol, the Donetsk region, Ukraine. The respondent Government are represented by Ms Iryna Shevchuk, the Head of the Office of the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 17 November 2000 the Ordzhonikidzevskyy District Court of Mariupol ordered the OJSC “Markhokhim” to pay each of the applicants various compensations, including UAH   2,000 (EUR 431.73) in non-pecuniary damages for the death of Mr A., their husband and father. The court judgment in the applicants’ favour became final and was enforced without delay. On 10 October 2002 the Supreme Court quashed this judgment in the part awarding the non-pecuniary damages to the applicants and on 28 May 2003 each applicant reimbursed UAH 2,000 to the respondent. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about an unfair hearing of their case by the Supreme Court. In particular, they alleged that the final judgment given in their favour was quashed. 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 9   February   2006. On 10   March   2006 the applicants were invited to submit their observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicants have failed to do so. Moreover, they have failed to respond to a registered letter dated 24   May   2006 and received by the first applicant in person on 2   June   2006, warning the applicants of the possibility that their case might be struck out of the Court’s list if they did not reply. Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicants do 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