European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Svitlana Oleksiyivna MARKOVA v Ukraine - 11096/07 [2010] ECHR 198 (26 January 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/198.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 198
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
11096/07
by Svitlana Oleksiyivna MARKOVA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Rait
Maruste,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
Mykhaylo
Buromenskiy, ad
hoc judge,
and
Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 February 2007,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Svitlana Oleksiyivna Markova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Oleksandriya. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
On 6 December 2004 the Oleksandriya Court ordered the Oleksandriya Department of Education to pay the applicant various work-related payments and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment remains partially unenforced.
The applicant complained under Articles 1, 4 § 2, 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that the judgment given in her favour had not been enforced in full.
By letter dated 16 February 2009 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 30 March 2009.
By letter dated 5 August 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant's observations had expired on 30 March 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. 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. No response has been received.
THE LAW
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 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