FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5803/05
by Viktor Grigoryevich YUSHCHENKO
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 January 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Viktor Grigoryevich Yushchenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Gorlovka, the Donetsk region, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
 By judgment of 23 June 2004 the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Court of Gorlivka awarded the applicant the salary arrears of 6,186.71 Ukrainian hryvnias (about ) to be paid by his former employer, the Gorlivka Remmash Factory.
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.
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 28 May 2009 the applicant received the Court’s letter. No response has been received to date.
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 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