FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24522/03
by Palmiro Apetnakovich ATAYAN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 May 2003,
Having regard to the Court’s decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Palmiro Apetnakovich Atayan, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Makhachkala. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Mrs V. Milinchuk, the Representatives 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.
On 24 January 2003 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala upheld the applicant’s pension claim against the Ministry of the Interior. The judgment became binding on 19 February 2003, but was not enforced immediately.
On 1 June 2006 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the judgment on supervisory review and ordered a rehearing.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement and supervisory review of the judgment.
THE LAW
By letter dated 25 June 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations by 6 September 2007.
By letter dated 29 November 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 6 September 2007 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 this letter on 12 December 2007. However, no response has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy