FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30500/06
by Marina BELYUSENKO
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 June 2006,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Marina Aleksandrovna Belyusenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in the town of Engels in the Saratov Region. The Russian Government were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their new Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant sued the municipal enterprise Engelslift EMO of the Saratov Region for the unpaid salary.
By judgments of 28 March 2002 and 2 June 2003, the Justice of the Peace of the 8th Circuit of Engels awarded the applicant 12,791 and 32,366 Russian roubles (RUB), respectively. It appears that in 2004 the applicant received RUB 632. In 2005 the enterprise was declared insolvent. The above judgments remain unexecuted in part.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the delay in the enforcement of the judgments of 28 March 2002 and 2 June 2003.
THE LAW
On 26 July 2007 the Government informed the Court that the applicant and the Saratov Regional Council had reached a settlement. Under the terms of the agreement dated 19 July 2007, submitted by the Government, the Council undertook to pay the applicant RUB 140,000 as compensation for the damage caused by the non-enforcement of the judgments of 28 March 2002 and 2 June 2003. That sum would constitute full and final resolution of the case and should be paid to the applicant within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision under Article 39 of the Convention. The applicant undertook to withdraw her application lodged with the Court.
On 17 August 2007 a copy of the Government’s letter of 26 July 2007 and the settlement agreement were sent to the applicant.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“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
...
(b) the matter has been resolved;
...
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 takes note of the settlement reached at the domestic level. The Court is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, 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 (b) 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