by Natalya Vasilyevna PETUKHOVA
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 May 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Ms Natalya Vasilyevna Petukhova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Armyansk, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
On 26 May 1998 the Krasnoperekopsky Court awarded the applicant 1,088.56 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for the delayed payment of salary arrears, to be paid by the company Sivashsky anilinokrasochniy zavod.
The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment given in her favour and about the length of the proceedings in her case. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
By letter dated 9 October 2008, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any comments in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 25 November 2008.
By registered letter dated 21 April 2009, the applicant was informed that the deadline for submission of her 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 25 April 2009 the applicant received the Court’s letter. No response has been received to date.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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