CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 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 } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 20961/02 by Anatoliy Mikhaylovich IVANYUK against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen, President,   Mr   K. Jungwiert,   Mr   V. Butkevych,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,   Mr   R. Maruste,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego,   Mrs   R. Jaeger, judges, and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 March 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 Mikhaylovich Ivanyuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1958 and lives in the city of Zhytomyr, Ukraine. The respondent Government were represented by Mrs V. Lutkovska, their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In November 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bogunskiy District Court of Zhytomyr against the “Oranta” National Joint-Stock Insurance Company to recover an insurance payment due to him. On 6 December 2000 the court found for the applicant and ordered the defendant company to pay him UAH 1,840 [1] . The decision became final. On 14 March 2001 the Deputy President of the Zhytomyr Regional Court lodged a request for supervisory review with the Presidium of the said court. The Deputy President believed that the sum awarded had been wrongly calculated and had to be increased to UAH 10,804 [2] . On 23 March 2001 the Presidium of the Zhytomyr Regional Court reviewed the case and changed the decision of 6 December 2000 by increasing the awarded amount to UAH 10,804. On unspecified date the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Ukraine lodged a request for supervisory review with the Supreme Court of Ukraine. On 10 October 2001 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine examined the above request for supervisory review under the new cassation procedure, in accordance with the transitional provisions of the Law of Ukraine on the Introduction of Changes to the Code of Civil Procedure of 21 June 2001. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the regional court and upheld the decision of the first instance court of 6 December 2000. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about unfair hearing in his case. He further complained under Article   3 of the Convention that the outcome of the proceedings caused him suffering. 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 2 September   2005. On 20 September   2005 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 not responded to a registered letter dated 13   January   2006 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.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President     [1] Around EUR 180. [2] Around EUR 1,640.