FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38575/04
by Vladimir Dmitriyevich KARACHUN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrL. Loucaides, President,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr A. Wampach, Deputy Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 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, Mr Vladimir Dmitriyevich Karachun, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, the Khabarovsk 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.
In 1999-2001 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were pending and he remained under an undertaking not to leave his place of residence.
As soon as the criminal proceedings were terminated, the applicant sued the domestic authorities for non-pecuniary damage caused to him by the above restraint.
On 29 March 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Komsomolsk-on-Amur awarded the applicant 500 Russian roubles in compensation for unlawful restraint.
On 27 June 2002 the judgment became binding and enforceable.
On 3 May 2005 the judgment was enforced in full.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained, inter alia, about the continued non-enforcement of the judgment of 29 March 2002.
THE LAW
On 24 November 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 12 April 2007 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. The Government informed the Court that on 3 May 2005 the judgment of 29 March 2002 had been enforced in full. The Government acknowledged that the length of the enforcement proceedings in the present case was inconsistent with the provisions of the Convention and that there had been, therefore, a violation of the rights of the applicant set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto. The Government further indicated their willingness to conclude a friendly settlement with the applicant and asked the Court to inform them of the applicant’s position of securing a friendly settlement.
The Court asked the applicant to submit his written observations by 6 June 2007.
On 25 May 2007 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 6 June 2007, on 23 July 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application. 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 a consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefore 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 view of the above-mentioned, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
André WampachLoukis Loucaides
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy