FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 1694/04 
by Volodymyr Vitaliyovych YAKOVENKO 
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr P. Lorenzen, President
 Mrs S. Botoucharova
 Mr V. Butkevych
 Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska
 Mr R. Maruste
 Mr J. Borrego Borrego, 
 Mrs R. Jaeger, judges
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 December 2003,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Volodymyr Vitaliyovych Yakovenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1951 and lives in the town of Kaniv, Cherkasy region, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs V. Lutkovska and Mr Y. Zaytsev.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kanivskyy Town Court of the Cherkasy Region against his former employer, the State-owned enterprise “Magnit” (ВАТ „Електромеханічний завод „Магніт”), to recover salary arrears. On 2 April 2001 the court awarded the applicant UAH 6,495.161 (Рішення Канівського міського суду).

On 10 May 2001 the Kanivskyy Town Bailiffs’ Office (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Канівського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings.

By letter of 22 July 2004, the applicant informed the Court that the judgment in his favour had been enforced without specifying the exact date of enforcement.

On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted another set of proceedings in the same court against his former employer claiming the indexation of the amount awarded by the judgment of 2 April 2001 in accordance with the inflation rate. On 23 July 2003 the court awarded the applicant UAH 464.662. This judgment remains non-enforced.

In 2004 the applicant instituted a third set of proceedings in the same court against his former employer claiming compensation for non-enforcement of the court judgements in his favour. On 6 September 2004 the court returned the applicant’s claim for non-compliance with procedural requirements.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour. The applicant also invoked Article 17 of the Convention without any further specification. The applicant finally alleged that he had been subjected to slavery due to the fact that his work had not been remunerated. He invoked Article 4 § 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicant’s favour on 22 June 2005. On 15 July 2005 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, he has failed to respond to a registered letter dated 2 February 2006, warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list.

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 examination of this application to be continued.

Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen 
 Registrar President

1. Around 1,370.69 euros (“EUR”).


2. Around 79.25 EUR.


YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE DECISION


YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE DECISION