FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 34746/04
by Olga Petrovna GAPICHEVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 2 March 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 August 2004,
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, Ms Olga Petrovna Gapicheva, is a Russian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Novosibirsk. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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 23 March 2000 the Kalininskiy District Court of Novosibirsk granted the applicant’s civil action against the Novosibirsk Regional Administration and awarded the applicant RUR 4,336.32 (EUR 151).
The judgment was not appealed against and became final ten days later.
On 10 April 2000 a writ of execution was issued.
On 31 October 2002 the applicant received RUR 168.28.
On 31 March 2003 the administration paid RUR 489.88 to the applicant.
At the time the application was lodged with the Court the judgment remained partly unenforced.
On 21 April 2005 the judgment was enforced in full.
On an unspecified date the applicant signed a settlement agreement with the Department of labour and social development of the Novosibirsk Region (Департамент труда и социального развития Новосибирской области) and on 15 July 2005 the applicant received RUR 7,000 (EUR 202) as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of the Kalininskiy District Court of Novosibirsk of 23 March 2000.
THE LAW
On 21 July 2005 the Court received from the Government a copy of the declaration addressed to the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights and signed by the applicant and another person whose application is pending before the Court. The relevant part of the declaration, as translated from Russian, read as follows:
“At the present moment, the “Department of labour and social development of the Novosibirsk Region”, on behalf of the Government, offered us to settle friendly the situation at hand, and paid us 7,000 (seven thousands) roubles as compensation.
We, [the other person] and Ms Gapicheva O.P., application no. 34746/04, agree to settle this issue and request to withdraw our applications from the European Court of Human Rights”.
The Government’s letter of 21 July 2005 also enclosed copies of financial documents showing that the specified amount had been transferred to the applicant’s account. The Government insisted that the applicant did not intend to pursue her application before the Court.
On 22 July 2005 the applicant was invited to submit her comments on the Government’s letter. No response followed. On 14 November 2005 the Court repeated its request, sent by registered mail. As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Registry, the letter of 14 November 2005 reached the applicant on 29 November 2005. 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 signed the declaration by which she had requested the Court not to examine her application. The applicant was invited to submit her comments. No reply has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue her 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.
Santiago QuesadaChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy