[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Dmytro Oleksiyovych PALIYCHUK v Ukraine - 49239/07 [2010] ECHR 187 (26 January 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/187.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 187

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

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 49239/07
by Dmytro Oleksiyovych PALIYCHUK
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 January 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 29 October 2007,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dmytro Oleksiyovych Paliychuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Kolomyya. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of two judgments in his favour.

Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 27 May 2009. By a letter of 18 June 2009 the applicant was invited to submit, by 30 July 2009, his observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction. However, the applicant failed to do so. Moreover, the Court's registered letter dated 2 October 2009 warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court's list of cases returned back to the Registry as not claimed by the addressee.

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 this application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President