Application no. 38848/02 
by Vasiliy Timofeyevich KOLYBYDENKO 
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5 July 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 S. Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 September 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 deliberated, decides as follows:


The applicant, Mr Vasiliy Timofeyevich Kolybydenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1943 and currently resides in the city of Kherson, Ukraine.

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

In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the labour disputes commission against the State Enterprise “Khersonskyi Sudnobudivnyi Zavod” (the “KSZ”) to recover unpaid salary. By decision of 9 October 2001, the labour disputes commission allowed the applicant’s claims and ordered the KSZ to pay the applicant UAH 4,813 in salary arrears.

On 20 February 2002 the applicant was informed by a letter from the Bailiffs’ Service that the decision in his favour was not executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.

According to the applicant, in May 2005 he received the full amount awarded to him by the decision of 9 October 2001.


The applicant originally complained about the non-enforcement of the decision in his favour. He invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and in substance Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.


Notice of the present application was given to the Government on 31 March 2005. By a letter of 1 June 2005, the applicant informed the Court that the judgment in his favour had been enforced in full and he did not want to pursue his application further. Therefore, he requested the Court to strike his case out of its list.

Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant no longer intends 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. Naismith J.-P. Costa  
 Deputy Registrar President