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 >> Nataliya Savivna SHESTAKOVA v Ukraine - 8987/07 [2010] ECHR 529 (16 March 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/529.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 529 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
8987/07
by Nataliya Savivna SHESTAKOVA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Rait
Maruste,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
Mykhaylo
Buromenskiy, ad
hoc judge
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 February 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Nataliya Savivna Shestakova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Oleksandriya. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
The applicant complained under Articles 1, 4 § 2, 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 December 2004 given in her favour against the Oleksandriya Department of Education.
By a letter dated 16 February 2009 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 30 March 2009.
By a letter dated 21 September 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 30 March 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s 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 applicant received the Court’s letter of 21 September 2009 on 3 October 2009. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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 the case.
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