SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 8490/04 
by Anatoliy Oleksiyovych SEMENENKO 
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 Mr S. Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 February 2004,

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 Anatoliy Oleksiyovych Semenenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in the town of Pervomayskiy, the Kharkiv Region, Ukraine.

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

By decisions of 28 January 1999 and 29 August 2000, the Pervomayskiy Town Court awarded the applicant UAH 4,449.79 against the Khimprom State Company in salary arrears and other payments.

On 27 November 2003 the Pervomaysky City Execution Service informed the applicant that the judgment was not enforced due to the debtor’s lack of funds and the bankruptcy proceedings pending against the debtor.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant originally complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments of the Pervomayskiy Town Court of 28 January 1999 and 29 August 2000. He invoked in substance Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant also complained that he had been subjected to slavery due to the fact that his work had not been remunerated. He invoked Article 4 § 1 of the Convention. He further complained about a violation of Articles 1 and 8 of the Convention without any specific reasoning.

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 7 December 2004. On 22 December 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 27 April 2005 and received by the applicant on 6 May 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. Naismith  J.-P. Costa 
 Deputy Registrar President

SEMENENKO v. UKRAINE DECISION


SEMENENKO v. UKRAINE DECISION