European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Anatoliy Grigoryevich SHCHERBAK v Ukraine - 25975/06 [2009] ECHR 1587 (22 September 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1587.html
Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1587
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
25975/06
by Anatoliy Grigoryevich SHCHERBAK
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,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
Mykhaylo
Buromenskiy, ad
hoc judge,
and
Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 June 2006,
Having regard to the correspondence with the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Grigoryevich Shcherbak, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Pavlograd, the Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine. He is represented before the Court by Mr O. Derevyanko, a lawyer practising in Pavlograd. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
By judgment of 18 July 2003 the Pavlograd Town Court awarded the applicant 12,303.48 Ukrainian hryvnias (about 2,122.70 euros at the material time) to be paid by his former employer, the “Samarska” State-owned Mine. According to the Government, this judgment was enforced in April 2006.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of 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 two letters dated 20 May 2009, sent by registered post to the applicant and his lawyer, they were informed that the deadline for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired. Their 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’s lawyer received the Court’s letter. No response has been received to date. The applicants’ latest communication with the Court dates from December 2006.
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