Application no. 4420/03
by Aleksandr Vasilyevich ZIKUN
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 7 December 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 Aleksandr Vasilyevich Zikun, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1957 and lives in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is an employee of the State mine “Lidievka”. In 2001 the applicant was injured in a traffic accident caused by the negligent driving of an employee of the State Mine “Yuzhnodonbasskaya No. 3” (the “YZD”), who was driving a vehicle owned by the mine. The YZD refused liability for damages.
On 9 August 2001 the Kirovsky District Court of Donetsk ordered the YZD to pay the applicant UAH 5,151.96 in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the traffic accident. The judgment became final on 9 September 2001 as there was no appeal.
On 20 June 2002 the Vugledar Town Court reviewed the applicant’s complaints about the inactivity of the Vugledar Bailiffs’ Service and declared its failure to enforce the judgment unlawful. It also obliged the State Bailiffs’ Service to enforce the judgment in accordance with the Law on Enforcement Proceedings. This judgment became final on 20 July 2002. The writ of enforcement was issued on 25 July 2002.
In their observations of 2 February 2004 the Government stated that on 11 July 2003 the judgment of 9 August 2001 had been enforced in full.
The applicant originally complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments of the Vugledar Town Court given in his favour. He relied on Article 6 § 1 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 complaints on 2 February 2004. On 3 March 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, 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.
S. Dollé J.-P. Costa
ZIKUN v. UKRAINE DECISION
ZIKUN v. UKRAINE DECISION