European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Tetyana Mykolayivna MATYASH & Ors v Ukraine - 11078/07 [2010] ECHR 199 (26 January 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/199.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 199
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11078/07
by Tetyana Mykolayivna MATYASH
and no. 11083/07 by
Nadiya Vasylivna Noga
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 applications lodged on 28 February 2007,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Tetyana Mykolayivna Matyash (“the first applicant”) and Ms Nadiya Vasylivna Noga (“the second applicant”), are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1968 and 1962 respectively and live in Oleksandriya. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
By judgments of 6 December 2004 and 26 November 2004 the Oleksandriya Court ordered the Oleksandriya Department of Education to pay, respectively, the first and the second applicant various work-related payments and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The judgments became final. They remain partially unenforced.
The applicants complained under Articles 1, 4 § 2, 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that the judgments given in their favour had not been enforced in full.
The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.
By separate letters dated 16 February 2009 the Government's observations were sent to the applicants, who were requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 30 March 2009. The applicants failed to do so.
By separate letters dated 5 August 2009, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 30 March 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants' 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. The first and second applicants received these letters on 17 and 13 August 2009 respectively. The applicants have not responded to these letters.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications and to strike them out of its list of cases.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President