Application no. 19245/05
by Nikolay Mikhaylovich BUTELO
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 September 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 27 March 2004,
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 applicant, Mr Nikolay Mikhaylovich Butelo, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Dniprodzerzhynsk. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Kukta, who lives in Dniprodzerzhynsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
On 25 September 2001 the Dniprovskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk awarded the applicant UAH 11,648.441 in salary arrears and other payments against the OJSC “the Dniprodzerzhynsk Plant of Electric Executive Mechanisms” (ВАТ „Дніпродзержинський завод електровиконавчих механізмів”) 49% of whose shares are owned by the State.
This judgment became final and was enforced in several instalments, the last one of UAH 2,3852 having been paid to the applicant on 10 January 2005.
The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the court judgment in his favour. He invoked Articles 1, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaint on 14 March 2006. On 7 April 2006 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the Court notes that he has failed to do so. Furthermore, the Court observes that the last submission from the applicant with regard to the present application dates to 24 August 2004, after which date he has never enquired about the status of the proceedings either in person or through his representative. Moreover, neither the applicant, nor his representative responded to a registered letter sent by the Registry of the Court dated 5 July 2006 and received by the applicant’s representative on 11 July 2006, warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list if he did not reply.
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
BUTELO v. UKRAINE DECISION
BUTELO v. UKRAINE DECISION