[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Nadezhda Vasilyevna KARPENKO v UKRAINE - 15839/04 [2008] ECHR 1117 (25 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1117.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1117

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 15839/04
by Nadezhda Vasilyevna KARPENKO
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 April 2004,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Nadezhda Vasilyevna Karpenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1952 and lives in the village of Melovatka, the Lugansk Region. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice.

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

On 12 March 2001 the Rubizhne Town Court ordered the Krasitel Company, in which the State held 84.56 % of the shares, to pay the applicant 1,324 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH)¹ in salary arrears.

On 14 December 2004 the judgment debt was paid to the applicant.

On 24 January 2005 the Lysychansk Town Court rejected the applicant's complaint against the Bailiffs concerning the lengthy enforcement of the judgment. On 21 April 205 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 4 of the Convention that she was subjected to slavery as she was not receiving her salary in due time. She further complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 17 of the Convention about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment given in her favour and about the unfairness and outcome of the proceedings against the Bailiffs. She also complained about a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 alleging that, while the management of the Krasitel Company was receiving their salaries, she was not.

THE LAW

Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 3 December 2007.

By letter of 20 December 2007 the applicant was invited to submit her observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 31 January 2008. However, the applicant failed to do so. Moreover, she failed to respond to a registered letter dated 3 March 2008, which she had received on 14 March 2008, warning the applicant of the possibility that her 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.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President