European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Yuriy Mitrofanovich KALYUZHNYY v Ukraine - 44307/07 [2010] ECHR 533 (16 March 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/533.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 533
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
44307/07
by Yuriy Mitrofanovich KALYUZHNYY
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Rait
Maruste,
Mark
Villiger,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
Mykhaylo
Buromenskiy, ad
hoc judge,
and
Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 September 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Yuriy Mitrofanovich Kalyuzhnyy, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Miusinsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour.
Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 29 May 2009. By a letter of 17 June 2009 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 29 July 2009. However, the applicant failed to do so. Moreover, he failed to respond to a registered letter dated 5 October 2009 warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list.
THE LAW
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 application.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President