CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 mai 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 } .s7E6D8F5B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDA4CC60F { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s92AF8DB0 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:41pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s45128115 { margin-top:41pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .s73FE938C { width:216.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; 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. 10564/02 by Aleksandr Nikolayevich DUBINA against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10   May 2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   A.B. Baka , 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 18 February 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 deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Aleksand Nikolayevich Dubina, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1936 and currently resides in Belitskoye, the Donetsk Region. The applicant is a former employee of a State company, the “Belitskaya Mine” (the “BM”). The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In November 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Dobropolsky City Court against the BM, seeking compensation for injuries caused to him by an industrial accident that occurred in 1982. On 27 December 2000 the Dobropolsky City Court ordered the BM to pay the applicant UAH 14,300 [1] in compensation. On 9 February 2001 the Dobropolsky City Execution Service (the “DCES”) instituted the execution proceedings in the case. On 7 February, 18 March and 12 April 2002 the DCES informed the applicant that the judgment could not be enforced due to the moratorium imposed on the sale of the BM's property and its lack of funds. COMPLAINTS The applicant originally complained about the non-execution of the judgment of the Dobropolsky City Court of 27 December 2000 given in his favour. He relied on Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. THE LAW Notice of the application was given to the Government on 9 September 2004. They submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints on 3 December 2004. The applicant was requested to submit his observations before 16 February 2005, but failed to do so. Moreover, he failed to respond to the communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 10 March 2005 warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court's list if he failed to respond. However, the Registry did not receive any reply. Moreover, the last letter from the applicant dated back to 22 November 2002. No further correspondence was received from the applicant. Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his 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 also 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] .     EUR 2,823.28.