Application no. 20809/02
by Vera Dmitriyevna DZHUGEL
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr J. Borrego Borrego, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 May 2002,
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, Mrs Vera Vladimirovna Dzhugel, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Pervomaysk, Lugansk region, Ukraine.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 31 October 2001 the Pervomaysk City Court awarded the applicant UAH 1,139 (EUR 179) against the Pervomaysk City Housing Maintenance Department (the “Debtor”) in salary arrears.
On 21 October 2004 the applicant received full payment of the debt.
The applicant complained about the non-execution of the court judgment in her favour, referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and invoking in substance Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. She further complained that the existing situation infringed her right to life under Article 2 § 1 of the Convention, given her low standard of living. The applicant also invoked Article 17 of the Convention, without reasons.
Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints on 28 September 2004. On 14 October 2004 the applicant was invited to submit her observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, she has failed to respond to a registered letter dated 1 August 2005 and received by the applicant in person on 11 August 2005, warning her of the possibility that her case might be struck out of the Court’s list if she 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
DZHUGEL v. UKRAINE DECISION
DZHUGEL v. UKRAINE DECISION