Application no. 31090/02
by Oleg Vladimirovich MIKHAYLISHIN
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 3 November 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr J.-P. Costa, President,
Mr I. Cabral Barreto,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs A. Mularoni,
Mrs E. Fura-Sandström,
Ms D. Jočienė,
Mr D. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 July 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, Mr Oleg Vladimirovich Mikhaylishin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1968 and lives in the town of Novogrodovka, Ukraine.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 3 May 2001 the Novogrodovsky Town Court ordered the State mine “1/3 Novogrodovskaya” (the “NVG”) to pay the applicant UAH 3,336.83 in compensation for the delayed payment of salary arrears. The decision was not appealed and became final.
On 30 August 2000 and 14 May 2001 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court prohibited the sale of the assets of the NVG and the execution of judgments against it until bankruptcy proceedings had been resolved.
On 12 September 2001 the Novogrodovsky Town Court rejected the applicant’s complaints about the failure of the State Bailiffs’ Service to enforce the judgment of 3 May 2001 as being unsubstantiated. On 1 November 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. On 19 February 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal against the judgment of 12 September 2001 and the ruling of 3 May 2001.
On 16 December 2002 the applicant informed the Court that the enforcement proceedings were still pending.
By letter of 19 May 2004, the Government informed the Court that the judgment of 3 May 2001 had been enforced in full.
The applicant originally complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Novogrodovsky Town Court given in his favour. He invoked Articles 2 § 1, 4 § 1 and 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints on 2 February 2004 and 19 May 2004. On 3 March 2004 and on 10 August 2004 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 24 March 2005 and received by the applicant on 4 April 2005, warning him 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.
S. Dollé J.-P. Costa
MIKHAYLISHIN v. UKRAINE DECISION
MIKHAYLISHIN v. UKRAINE DECISION