FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3559/04
by Svetlana DUBOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 December 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Svetlana Alekseyevna Dubova, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Voronezh. The respondent Government are represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, 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.
On 24 September 2001 the Levoberezhniy District Court of Voronezh allowed the applicant’s action for child benefits arrears and awarded her 11,365.14 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately 420 euros) against the Voronezh Regional Government.
The applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs’ service.
On an unspecified date she received RUB 3,942.06.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of the Levoberezhniy District Court of Voronezh of 24 September 2001.
THE LAW
On 13 September 2007 the Government informed the Court that they had reached friendly settlement with the applicant. They enclosed a copy of the friendly settlement agreement of 24 August 2007 concluded between the applicant and the Voronezh Regional Social Security Service. Under the friendly settlement agreement the Social Security Service undertook to pay the applicant RUB 7,423.08 representing the outstanding debt under the judgment of 24 September 2001 and RUB 11,365.14 (about 325 euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It was further stipulated that, subject to the fulfilment of the above undertaking, the applicant had no further claims against the authorities of the Russian Federation in respect of the facts set out in her application before the Court. The Government also enclosed a copy of the bank transfer details, confirming that on 24 August 2007 the amount of RUB 18,788.22 had been credited to the applicant’s bank account.
The applicant was invited to submit her comments by 19 November 2007.
As the applicant’s comments had not been received by the indicated time-limit, on 19 December 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit her comments might result in the strike-out of the application. To date the applicant has not replied.
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
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
(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 friendly settlement reached between the parties at domestic level. The amount stipulated therein was reasonable as to quantum and it was paid to the applicant without undue delay. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the matter was resolved at the domestic level, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (see Sarkisyan v. Russia (dec.), no. 20812/03, 2 March 2006). Moreover, the applicant was advised that she was to submit comments on the Government’s observations. She was subsequently reminded thereof by a registered letter. However, she did not reply. The Court infers therefrom that she does not intend to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it at present to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck 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