CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA230456B { width:36.88pt; display:inline-block } .s4614B967 { width:198.15pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 2472/02 by Nadezhda Nikolayevna TERNOVA against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26   April 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 7 December 2001, Having regard to the decisions to communicate the application and to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention with a view to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the case, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Nadezhda Nikolayevna Ternova, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1948 and currently resides in Krasnoarmeysk, the Donetsk Region. The applicant is the widow of a former employee of the State JSC Novogrodovskaya Mine (SJSC). The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In May 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovsky City Court against the SJSC seeking to receive the salary which had not been paid to her deceased husband. On 14 June 2001 the Novogrodovsky City Court ordered the SJSC to pay the applicant UAH 4,005.24 [1] and UAH 2,231.96 [2] in compensation for material damage and the delay in payment, respectively. On 27 July 2001 the Novogrodovsky Execution Service instituted execution proceedings in the applicant's case. On 31 October, 13 and 28 November 2001 the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice and the Novogrodovsky Execution Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be executed due to the SJSC's lack of funds. On 12 June 2002 the Novogrodovsky Execution Service repeated this information. It also told the applicant that, on 30 August 2000 and 14   May 2001, the Donetsk Arbitration Court had prohibited the attachment and auctioning of the SJSC's property due to the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings. On 12 May 2004 the applicant received the full amount of the debt owed to her. On 13   May 2004 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as the judgment of 14   June 2001 had been enforced. COMPLAINTS The applicant originally complained about the non-execution of the judgment of the Novogrodovsky City Court on 14 June 2000. She alleged an infringement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. THE LAW Notice of the application was given to the Government on 2   July 2003. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaint on 29 September 2003. The applicant has failed to submit observations in reply. Moreover, she has failed to respond to the communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 19 January 2005 warning the applicant of the possibility that her case might be struck out of the Court's list if she failed to respond. The applicant received this letter personally on 1   February 2005. However, the Registry did not receive a reply to it. 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 to the case 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 [1] .     EUR 868.94. [2] .     EUR 484.23.