BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Zinaida Fyodorovna KRIVAYA v Ukraine - 56359/07 [2010] ECHR 544 (16 March 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/544.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 544 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
56359/07
by Zinaida Fyodorovna KRIVAYA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Rait
Maruste,
Mark
Villiger,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
Mykhaylo
Buromenskiy, ad
hoc judge,
and
Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 November 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Ms Zinaida Fyodorovna Krivaya, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Kherson. 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 about non-enforcement of a judgment 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 29 May 2009. By a letter of 17 June 2009 the applicant was invited to submit her observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 29 July 2009. However, the applicant failed to do so. Moreover, she failed to respond to a registered letter dated 5 October 2009 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 continued examination of the application.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President