CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 septembre 2009

.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 } .s1FC43E70 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .sDB6B63EE { width:176.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 35233/06 by Aleksandr Petrovich MIKHAYLIN against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22   September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Renate Jaeger,   Karel Jungwiert,   Rait Maruste,   Mark Villiger,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,   Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 August 2006, Having regard to the correspondence with the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Petrovich Mikhaylin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Slovyansk, the Donetsk region, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev. By decision of 21 September 2000 the Labour Dispute Commission awarded the applicant the salary arrears of 4,373.91 Ukrainian hryvnias (about 948.01 euros at the material time) to be paid by his former employer, the JSC “Slovyansky Keramichny Kombinat” in which the respondent State owns more than 25% of the share capital. The judgment apparently remains unenforced. Later, the applicant lodged a claim against the State directly with the Supreme Court of Ukraine, seeking compensation for the lengthy non-enforcement of the court judgment. On 27   September 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider this claim. Relying on Article 6   §   1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention the applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the above judgment. Additionally the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the refusal of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to entertain his claim against the State. He also relied on Article 1 of the Convention. By letter dated 6 March   2009 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any comments together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 20   April 2009. By letter dated 19 May 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was informed that the deadline for submission of his observations had expired. 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. On 26 May 2009 the applicant received the Court’s letter. No response has been received to date. The applicants’ latest communication with the Court dates from May 2008. THE LAW 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   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President