FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29849/03
by Rustam Rashidovich ABDURASHIDOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 August 2003,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Rustam Rashidovich Abdurashidov, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Nalchik. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant sued the Nalchik Town Administration for provision of social housing and compensation for damage.
On 8 April 2003 the Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic dismissed his claim as unsubstantiated.
On 28 April 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic.
On the same day the applicant was notified about the appeal hearing which had been listed for 7 May 2003.
On 7 May 2003 the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic gave the appeal judgment. It noted that it had examined the case in the absence of the applicant who had been informed about the hearing date but failed to appear. A representative of the Nalchik Town Administration was present and made submissions to the court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he had been discriminated against on account of his ethnic origin, that the Supreme Court had examined the matter in his absence, that he had not been duly summoned for the appeal hearing and that the courts had refused his claim for the provision of a flat.
THE LAW
On 5 September 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 25 November 2005 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit written observations in reply by 30 January 2006.
On 20 January 2006 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 30 January 2006, on 14 February 2006 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application.
As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 14 February 2006 reached the applicant on 3 March 2006.
The applicant did not reply.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court notes that the applicant was requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about the consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.
In these circumstances it considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy