FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
CASE OF PETRUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 19018/06, 40398/06, 2344/07, 6197/07 and 7576/07)
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 ,
Having regard to five applications (see the Attachment),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applications were lodged by five Ukrainian nationals. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The applicants complained, mainly referring to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about the lengthy non-enforcement of final judgments given in their favour and a resulting breach of their property rights.
The applicants’ complaints concerning the lengthy non-enforcement of the final judgments were communicated to the respondent Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. These observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit observations in reply. However, the applicants did not reply.
By separate letters, sent to each applicant by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicants received the Registry’s letters, but failed to respond.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background. It also concludes, having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, that the applicants do not intend to pursue their applications. 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 applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications and to strike them out of its list of cases.
	Claudia Westerdiek	Peer Lorenzen 
	Registrar	President

Attachment

No.	Number/Name/
Date of lodging	The applicants’ dates of birth and places of residence	Dates of communication of the complaints to the Government	Dates of forwarding of the Government’s observations to the applicants	Expiry dates for lodging of the applicants’ observations/
Dates of the Registry’s warning letters sent to the applicants and dates of their receipt	
1.	19018/06
PETRUK,
Anatoliy Arsentyevich
5 May 2006	1937,
Lugansk Region	3 February 2009	18 June 2009	30 July 2009/
2 October 2009, received on 9 October 2009	
2.	40398/06
KVASNIY,
Semyon Yuryevich
12 September 2006	1940,
Donetsk Region	10 February 2009	24 June 2009	17 September 2009/
24 November 2009, received on 30 November 2009	
3.	2344/07
RUBANOV,
Vladimir Ivanovich
18 December 2006	1950,
Donetsk Region	3 February 2009	18 June 2009	30 July 2009/
2 October 2009, received on 19 October 2009	
4.	6197/07
KUCHERUK,
Rayisa Doremidontivna
1 February 2007	1958,
Zhytomyr			30 July 2009/
21 September 2009, received on 2 October 2009	
5.	7576/07
RUDYK,
Vasiliy Andreyevich
29 January 2007	1946,
Lugansk Region			30 July 2009/
21 September 2009, received on 28 September 2009