CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 octobre 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .sC7A07479 { width:178.96pt; 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. 1068/06 by Vasiliy Vasilyevich KIRICHENKO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7   October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Rait Maruste, President,   Karel Jungwiert,   Volodymyr Butkevych,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 December 2005, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Vasiliy Vasilyevich Kirichenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Dnepropetrovsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr   Y.   Zaytsev. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 26 January 2002 the applicant retired from the Army. Upon retirement, he became entitled to compensation for his uniform and travel expenses. On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the Military Court of Dnipropetrovsk Harrison against his former employer, a military unit, seeking compensation for his uniform and travel expenses. On 25 February 2003 the court awarded the applicant   2,514 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) [1] for uniform expenses and UAH 82.78 [2] for travel expenses. The above judgment was enforced in part. The applicant received UAH 82.78, the outstanding judgment debt being UAH 2,514. On 28 April 2004 the enforcement proceedings were terminated because of the debtor's lack of funds and because the property of the Armed Forces could not be used to enforce a court decision. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Military Court of Dnipropetrovsk Harrison of 25 February 2003. He invoked Article   6   §   1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He also complained that the non-enforcement was in violation of Articles 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention THE LAW By a letter dated 12 April 2007 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 30 May 2007. By a letter dated 9 November 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the deadline for submission of the applicant's observations had expired on 30 May 2007 and that no extension of that deadline had been requested. The applicant's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. However, no response has been received. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.   For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Claudia Westerdiek   Rait Maruste   Registrar   President [1] Around 450.50 euros (EUR). [2] Around EUR 14.80.