[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Valentyna Mykolayivna MIROSHNYK v Ukraine - 44917/04 [2009] ECHR 420 (17 February 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/420.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 420

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

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 44917/04
by Valentyna Mykolayivna MIROSHNYK
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 February 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 December 2003,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The application was lodged by Mrs Valentyna Mykolayivna Miroshnyk, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1949 and lives in the Kirovograd Region. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.

The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 15 June 2001 of the Oleksandriya Town Court in her favour.

Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 21 July 2008.

By letter of 11 August 2008, the applicant was invited to submit her observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 22 September 2008. However, the applicant failed to do so. Moreover, she failed to respond to a registered letter dated 27 October 2008, warning the applicant of the possibility that her case might be struck out of the Court’s list.

THE LAW

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