FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application s no s . 18127/05 , 35011/05 and 10299/06 by Kostyantyn Kostyantynovych ZINCHENKO , Ivan Ivanovich KIRILENKO and Ganna Mykolayivna SOLODUKHA against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Rait Maruste , President, Karel Jungwiert , Volodymyr Butkevych , Renate Jaeger , Mark Villiger , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application s lodged on 29 April 2005, 15 September 2005 and 2 March 2006, respectively,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Mr Kostyantyn Kostyantynovych Zinchenko, who was born in 1939 and lives in Kyiv (application no. 18127/05), Mr Ivan Ivanovich Kirilenko , who was born in 1944 and lives in Kherson ( application no. 35011/05) , and M r s Ganna Mykolayivna Solodukha, who was born in 1947 and lives in Pyatykhatky (application no. 10299/06) .

All the applicants are Ukrainian nationals.

The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.

The facts of the case s , as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

By judgments in their respective cases (judgments of 14 August and 19 October 2002 concerning Mr Zinchenko ; judgments of 18 April 2002 and 17 February 2004 concerning Mr Kirilenko; judgment of 29 April 2003 concerning M rs Solodukha ) the domestic courts awarded the applicants compensation to be paid by municipal companies.

All these judgments became final and enforceable. According to the Government, the judgments concerning Mr Kirilenko and M rs Solodukha were enforced in full by 5 November 2007 and 15 May 2007, respectively. The judgments concerning Mr Zinchenko apparently remain unenforced.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant s complained under Article s 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention , as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour . They also relied in this connection on Articles 1 and 8 of the Convention .

THE LAW

1 . 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.

2 . By letter dated 21 January 2008 the Government ’ s observations were sent to the applicant s , who were requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 3 March 2008.

By letter dated 9 April 2008 , sent by registered post, the applicant s were notified that the period allowed for submission of the ir observations had expired on 3 March 2008 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. Mr Kirilenko and Mrs Solodukha received this letter on 16 and 24 April 2008, respectively. It is unclear whether Mr Zinchenko has received it, however, no correspondence has been received from him since 23 October 2007.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant s may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application s , 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 s . In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case s out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

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

             Stephen Phillips Rait Maruste Deputy Registrar President