CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 mai 2006

.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 } .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 } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s64C69EF9 { width:181.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 18792/02 by Viktor Leontiyovych KONDRATYEV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9   May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego , judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 April 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 Viktor Leontiyovych Kondratyev, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Dmitrov, Donetsk region, Ukraine. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 22 November 2000 the Dmitrov City Court awarded the applicant UAH 57,125 (EUR 8,979) against the State-owned Stakhanova coal-mine (the “Debtor”) for arrears in the payment of industrial disablement benefits. On 21 July 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings as the judgment had been enforced in full. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the judgment given in his favour. He referred in substance to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 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 28   September   2004. On 14   October   2004 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. On 31   May   2005 the applicant informed the Court that he had not received the Court’s letter of 14   October   2004. On 22   June   2005 the letter was re-sent to the applicant and he was invited to submit his observations by 8   August   2005. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, he has failed to respond to a registered letter dated 21   November   2005 and received by the applicant in person on 7   December   2005, warning him of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list if he failed to reply. 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.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President