FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31986/03
by Igor Nikolayevich KABALNOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 September 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Igor Nikolayevich Kabalnov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Bryansk. 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.
In 2000 the applicant decided to move from the Magadan Region to the Bryansk Region.
On 29 November 2001 the applicant sued the Financial Department of the Magadan Regional Administration, seeking compensation for his moving expenses.
On 9 September 2002 the Magadan Town Court granted the applicant’s action and awarded him RUR 19,712.31 (approximately 635 euros) against the Financial Department of the Magadan Regional Administration as compensation for his expenses.
On 15 October 2002 the Magadan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
At the time the application was lodged with the Court the judgment remained unenforced.
On 15 January 2004 the judgment was enforced in full.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained, in substance, without invoking any Convention provisions, that the length of the proceedings had been excessive, that the domestic courts had not awarded him a bigger amount of compensation and that the judgment of the Magadan Town Court of 9 September 2002 had not been enforced.
THE LAW
On 9 March 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 15 July 2005 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit written observations in reply by 20 September 2005.
On 5 September 2005 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 20 September 2005, on 28 November 2005 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application.
As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 28 November 2005 reached the applicant on 7 December 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 was requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about the consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his 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.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy