by Dmitriy Viktorovich BABKIN
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 November 2003,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Viktorovich Babkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Volgograd, the Russian Federation.
The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The applicant formerly resided in Ukraine and was employed by the Ukrainian open joint stock company Luganskoblenergo.
On 28 October 2002 the Lysychansk Court awarded the applicant 2,306 hryvnias (UAH) in salary arrears and other payments, against his former employer.
This judgment was not appealed against. It became final and enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the debt.
On 12 January 2004 the applicant was paid UAH 1,466.
On 15 March 2006 the Bailiffs’ Service transferred the remainder of the debt to the applicant.
The applicant complained of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment given in his favour. He relied on Articles 1, 3 and 13 of the Convention. Additionally, the applicant alleged that the debtor company had discriminated him in breach of Article 14 of the Convention, by paying debts sooner to other employees who had not lodged civil actions against it.
By a letter dated 30 May 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any comments he wished to make in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction, by 11 July 2008.
By a letter dated 21 April 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 it to conclude that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
No return receipt or response from the applicant was received by the Court.
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.
Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen