BELOZUB proti Ukrajině

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 21869/03
by Vladimir Petrovich BELOZUB
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 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 10 June 2003,

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 Vladimir Petrovich Belozub, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Novogrodovka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court against his former employer, the “Ugledobycha” company (ЗАО «Угледобыча»), for salary arrears. On 21 April 1999 the court awarded the applicant UAH 4,045.04[1] (Решение Новогродовского городского суда Донецкой области).

In May 1999 the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Office (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Новогродовского городского управления юстиции) initiated the enforcement proceedings. By letters of 22 February 2001 and 11 September 2002, the Bailiffs’ Office informed the applicant that the debtor did not have property to sell and that, by a judgment of 5 March 2002 of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs’ Office had been prohibited from selling the property of the company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against it.

On 25 September 2003 the Doentsk Region Commercial Court declared the bankruptcy of the debtor company.

Apparently, the court judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (in substance) of the Convention about the lengthy non-enforcement of the court judgment in his favour. He also complained of a violation of his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant further complained of a violation of the right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No.1 and of a violation of his freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, as he could not provide an education for his children and could not afford to travel because of the non-enforcement of the court judgment in his favour.

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 16 June 2005. On 4 July 2005 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. The registered letter to the applicant dated 2 February 2006 warning him of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list was returned to the Court as the Post Office failed to find the applicant at the address provided. The applicant, however, did not inform the Court about any changes of his address and did not correspond with the Court since May 2004.

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 359.3 euros