CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 juin 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sE4451B15 { width:219.95pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; 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. 3106/06 by Volodymyr Petrovych MAZURAKA against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17   June   2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Rait Maruste,   Karel Jungwiert,   Volodymyr Butkevych,   Mark Villiger,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 December 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 Volodymyr Petrovych Mazuraka, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1958 and lives in the town of Chervonograd, Lviv Region, 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. In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Chervonograd Town Court against the Lvivvugillya State Enterprise, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the failure of the defendant to provide the applicant with an apartment to which he had been entitled according to his agreement with the defendant. On 19 November 2003 the court partly found for the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant 42,000 [1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation. By letter of 30 May 2005, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that it had seized some of the debtor’s property which was not covered by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, and that the court judgment in the applicant’s favour would be enforced gradually in accordance with his place in the list of creditors. The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles   6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of the Chervonograd Town Court of 19 November 2003. THE LAW Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application on 12   March 2007. On 5 April 2007 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 9   November 2007, which he received on 21 November 2007, 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. Stephen Phillips   Peer Lorenzen Deputy Registrar   President [1] .     Around EUR 7,042.