CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 avril 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sB040461F { width:230.11pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 34284/02 by Anatoliy Petrovich GROMYLO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5   April 2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   A.B. Baka , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström ,   Ms   D. Jočienė, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 August 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 Anatoliy Petrovich Gromylo, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1948 and lives in the town of Dobropolye, the Donetsk Region, Ukraine. The respondent Government are represented by their Agents - Mrs V. Lutkovska and Mrs Z. Bortnovska. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 2002 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Dobropolsky Local Court of the Donetsk Region against his employer, a State-owned mining company, in order to receive disability payments. On 22   March   2002, the court found for the applicant ( Решение Добропольского городского суда ) and awarded him 29,067.97 UAH. In May-June 2002, the Dobropolsky Local Bailiffs' Service ( Відділ державної виконавчої служби Добропольського міського управління юстиції ) informed the applicant about the measures taken by the Bailiffs to enforce the judgment and the limitations on enforcement proceedings due to the operation of the Law “On the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”. According to the Government, the full amount was paid to the applicant by instalments, the last being on 10 November 2003. On 12 November 2003 the enforcement proceedings were completed. COMPLAINTS The applicant originally complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour violated his right to a fair hearing and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property. THE LAW Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints on 5   January   2004. On 3   February   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 23 November 2004 and received by the applicant on 6   December   2004, warning him 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   A.B. Baka   Registrar   President