Application no. 36639/03
by Viktor Vladimirovich DUDAR
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 5 November 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 applicant, Mr Viktor Vladimirovich Dudar, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Torez, Donetsk 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.
In June 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Torezskiy Town Court against his former employer, the Lutugin Mine of the Torez State Mining Company (Торезское ГОАО шахта им. Лутугина ГХК «Торезантрацит»), for salary arrears. On 8 November 2000 the court awarded the applicant UAH 2,061.541 (Решение Торезского городского суда Донецкой области).
On 23 November 2000 the Torez District Bailiffs’ Office (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Торезского районного управления юстиции) initiated the enforcement proceedings. In their observations of 16 June 2005 the Government informed the Court that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced by 1 December 2004.
On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against his former employer, the Progress Mine of the Torez State Mining Company (шахта «Прогресс» ГП «Торезантрацит») in a labour dispute. The applicant also claimed salary arrears. On 9 June 2003 the court awarded the applicant UAH 1,485.062.
On 18 August 2003 the Torez District Bailiffs’ Office initiated the enforcement proceedings. However, the judgment was not enforced.
By the letter of 8 October 2003 the Donetsk Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that it was not possible to sell the debtors’ property as, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour. He further complained that his right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No.1 was violated as he could not provide education for his son because of the non-enforcement of the court judgments in his favour. The applicant further invoked Article 17 of the Convention without any further specification.
Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints on 16 June 2005. On 4 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
DUDAR v. UKRAINE DECISION
DUDAR v. UKRAINE DECISION