SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 44364/02 
by Aleksandr Prokhorovich KOVAL 
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 November 2005 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr A.B. Baka, President
 Mr I. Cabral Barreto
 Mr K. Jungwiert
 Mr V. Butkevych
 Mr M. Ugrekhelidze
 Mrs A. Mularoni, 
 Mrs E. Fura-Sandström, 
 Ms D. Jočienė, judges 
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 November 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 FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Prokhorovich Koval, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Dniprodzerzhynsk.

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

In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zavodskyi District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk against the Zavodskyi Municipal Enterprise (the “ZME”), seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 4 December 2000 the court awarded the applicant UAH 4,413.401 in salary arrears and other payments.

In accordance with the decision of the Dniprodzerzhynsk City Council of 29 September 2000 and the order of the Dniprodzerzhynsk City Council’s Communal Property Fund of 23 October 2000, all assets of the ZME were transferred to the Dniprodzerzhynsk Communal Enterprise (the “DCE”) – a State-owned entity.

On 10 May 2002 the Zavodskyi District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk changed the debtor in the enforcement proceedings and ordered the DCE to pay the applicant the remainder of the judgment debt (UAH 3,738.732).

On 23 January 2003 the Dniprodzerzhynsk Local Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour could not be enforced because of the debtor’s lack of funds.

On 27 September 2004 the Zavodskyi District Bailiffs’ Service of Dniprodzerzhynsk discontinued the enforcement proceedings in view of the full enforcement of the judgment given in the applicant’s favour.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained in substance under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedies in respect of his non-enforcement complaint. The applicant finally complained under Article 4 § 1 of the Convention that he had been subjected to slavery due to the fact that his work had not been remunerated.

THE LAW

Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaint on 24 February 2005. On 11 March 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 27 July 2005, warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list. It is further observed that the applicant has not corresponded with the Court since 22 February 2003, the date on which the Court received the last letter from him.

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 A.B. Baka Registrar President

1.  Around EUR 733.


2.  Around EUR 620.


KOVAL v. UKRAINE DECISION


KOVAL v. UKRAINE DECISION