CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 novembre 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 } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2A429DC4 { width:201.96pt; 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. 6525/04 by Aleksandr Nikolayevich TRUBACHYOV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13   November 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   M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 January 2004, 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 Aleksandr Nikolayevich Trubachyov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1944 and lives in the town of Novodruzhensk, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   Y.   Zaytsev. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 17 February 1999 the labour disputes commission of the Lysychanskvugillya State Enterprise ordered the enterprise to pay the applicant UAH   1,990.05 [1] in salary arrears. By a number of letters of 2000-2003, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the decision given in his favour could not be enforced due to the debtor’s lack of funds. On 20 September 2004 the applicant withdrew the writ of execution from the Bailiffs’ Service. The decision of 17 February 1999 was fully enforced on 28 October 2004. COMPLAINTS   The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decision of the labour disputes commission of 17 February 1999. He invoked Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. THE LAW Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application on 2   March 2006. On 31   March 2006 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, he has failed to respond to a registered letter dated 21   August   2006, which he received on 29 August   2006, 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   332 euros (EUR).