FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 23026/09 Valeriy Petrovich YEROKHIN against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15 May 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Georges Ravarani, Marko Bošnjak , judges,

and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 April 2009,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 14 June 2017,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant, Mr Valeriy Petrovich Yerokhin , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1944 and lives in Makeyevka.

2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna .

3. The applicant complained about the failure of a State-owned enterprise to pay him a lump-sum aid upon retirement which was foreseen by the Coal Sectoral Agreement between the Government and the trade unions of coal industry employees.

4. On 18 February 2017 notice of the application was given to the Government. On 22 February 2017 the applicant was asked to appoint a representative according to Rule 36 of the Rules of Court by 2 May 2017. As the applicant resides in the area of hostilities in eastern Ukraine and where there are currently no postal services, the respective letter was sent to his e-mail address.

5. On 14 June 2017 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.

6. As the applicant had failed to appoint a representative in due time, on 26 June 2017 the Registry contacted him by telephone. According to the applicant, he had not received the Court ’ s letter and provided another e-mail address. On the same day, another e-mail reminding the applicant of the need to appoint a representative (by 24 July 2017) was sent to the new e ‑ mail address. The applicant failed to respond.

7. In September 2017 the applicant was again contacted by the Registry by telephone. He said that he was unable to find a lawyer as access to legal aid was limited in the territory where he resided and that he did not intend to answer the Court ’ s letters given that he had lodged his case in 2009 and there was still no decision. On the proposal to inform the Court of his problem finding a representative he said that there was no fax in the town and no postal services. To assist the applicant in the communication with the Court, a temporary e-mail address to submit his documents was given to him. The applicant has never availed himself of this possibility.

8. On 17 November 2017 a letter was sent to the applicant ’ s e-mail granting him an extension of the time-limit to appoint a representative until 15 December 2017. He was also informed of the possibility to ask for self-representation. It was noted in the letter that the Court might strike the case out of the list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. No reply was received to this letter.

THE LAW

9. The Court observes that a lawyer ’ s participation would have been necessary to facilitate the examination of the present case given its legal complexity. The Court is mindful of the specific circumstances in which the applicant finds himself living in the area of hostilities. The Court notes, however, that while access to legal aid might indeed be limited due to this, it is not at all impossible. Moreover, the applicant, while being informed of a possibility to ask for self-representation, has never availed himself of it.

10. The Court also recalls its numerous attempts to facilitate the applicant ’ s communication with the Court and his pursuit of the application. The applicant received all necessary information and reminders on the subject, including the warning that his application might be struck out of the list, but he nevertheless failed to reply in writing.

11. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (see, mutatis mutandis, Ivanchenko v Ukraine ( dec. ), no. 60726/00, 7 February 2006 and Ryl v Ukraine [Committee] ( dec. ), no. 40614/10, 10 February 2015).

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.

Done in English and notified in writing on 7 June 2018 .

Andrea Tamietti Vincent A. De Gaetano              Deputy Registrar President