FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 34944/03
by Sergey Markarovich GRIGORYAN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr. Sergey Markarovich Grigoryan, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Bataysk of the Rostov Region. The Russian Government (“the 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 Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant sued the local Social Welfare Office for an increased pension and food allowance, as well as arrears.
On 22 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region granted his claim in part and ordered the respondent authority to pay him 5,376 Russian Roubles monthly starting from 1 January 2002 until 1 January 2003, and to index-link the payments in accordance with the domestic legislation.
On 16 April 2003 the judgment was upheld by the Rostov Regional Court and acquired legal force.
On 28 January 2004 the respondent authority paid the applicant arrears for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2003.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about non-enforcement of the final judgment in his favour.
THE LAW
On 28 November 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
By letter dated 28 February 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 25 April 2007.
By letter dated 4 December 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 25 April 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.
As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, on 17 December 2007 the applicant received the letter. No response followed.
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