CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 décembre 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 } .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 } .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. 20978/05 by Oleg Vitalyevich GORENBURG against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4   December 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mr   M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 May 2005, 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 Oleg Vitalyevich Gorenburg, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1951 and lives in the city of Donetsk, 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 an unspecified date the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Proletarskiy District Court of Donetsk against his former employer, the State-owned enterprise “Krasnaya Zvezda” ( Государственное предприятие « Шахтоуправление «Красная Звезда») seeking recovery of salary and other payments arrears. On 20 April 1999 the court awarded the applicant UAH   30,313.74 [1] ( рішення Пролетарського районного суду м. Донецька ). On 15 May 2000 the debtor enterprise was liquidated and the State Enterprise “Ukrvuglerestrukturizatsiya” ( Державне підприємство «Укрвуглереструктуризація» ) became its successor. In 2000-2003 the applicant received UAH 25,313.74 [2] . On 29 December 2003 the Proletarskiy District Court of Donetsk, following the applicant’s motion, obliged the “Ukrvuglerestrukturizatsiya” to pay the applicant the outstanding sum of the debt – UAH 5,000. On 13 January 2004 the Voroshilovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service ( Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Ворошиловського районного управління юстиції м.Донецька ) initiated the enforcement proceedings in the case. On 11 October 2004 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy appointed a liquidation commission to the State Enterprise “Ukrvuglerestrukturizatsiya”. By letter of 12 January 2005, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the delay in enforcement of the judgment in his favour was due to a lack of financing from the State. It further informed the applicant that the debtor’s bank accounts had been seized and that he would receive the awarded sum as soon as the State Treasury provided financing. On 22 January 2005 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as the debtor’s activity had been suspended. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the lengthy non-enforcement of the court judgment in his favour. THE LAW Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application on 6   March 2006. On 21   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 28 August   2006, warning him 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 7,169.06 euros (EUR) [2] . Around EUR 5, 987.17