FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40168/02
by Valeriy Nikolayevich KHANAYEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting
on 12 January 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. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 October 2002,
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 and the request submitted by the applicant’s successors,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Valeriy Nikolayevich Khanayev, was a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lived in Vologda. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. A. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 10 January 2001 the Vologda Town Court granted the applicant’s claim against the Vologda Town Council for provision of State housing, for which he was eligible as a participant of the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. The court ordered the Town Council to provide the applicant and his family with separate well‑equipped residential premises until 1 July 2001.
The Town Council appealed against the judgment. On 30 March 2001 the Vologda Regional Court amended the judgment in so far as the time‑limit for the provision of housing was concerned. It ordered that the applicant should be provided with housing in the order set out on the waiting list. It upheld the judgment in the remaining part.
On 29 April 2001 a court bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings.
On 9 December 2002 the Presidium of the Vologda Regional Court, having examined the case in supervisory review proceedings, quashed the appeal instance’s decision of 30 March 2001 as unlawful in so far as it amended the judgment. The latter was, thus, restored in its original wording.
On 21 January 2003 a court bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings following the decision of the Presidium of the Regional Court.
B. Events after the case was communicated
On 4 May 2004 the Registrar sent a letter to the parties, informing them that the Court had decided to give notice of the application to the Russian Government.
Following the Town Council’s query, the Town Court in its decision of 8 June 2004 established that the applicant’s family members, who were entitled to receive housing in enforcement of the judgment of 10 January 2001, were Mrs N. A. Khanayeva, his mother, and Mrs A. N. Chekmareva, his sister.
The applicant declined several offers to provide him with a flat made by the Town Council.
On 13 June 2004 the applicant died.
On 1 July 2004 the applicant’s mother Mrs N. A. Khanayeva accepted, on behalf of the applicant’s successors, the Town Council’s offer to provide them with flat no. 83 at 9 Poshekhonskoye shosse in Vologda.
On 26 July 2004 the Government submitted their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. They submitted, inter alia, that the application was manifestly ill-founded as the applicant, in denying offers by the Town Council to provide him with a flat, had delayed the enforcement of the judgment. They further stated that the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases because the judgment had been enforced and the applicant’s successors did not have any claims concerning the enforcement of the judgment.
By a letter of 4 August 2004 received by the Court on 22 September 2004 Mrs N. A. Khanayeva, the applicant’s mother, Mrs M. S. Smakovdina, his grandmother, and Mrs A. N. Chekmareva, his sister, informed the Court of the applicant’s death and requested it to consider them as the applicant’s successors in respect of his application before it. They further informed the Court that they wished to withdraw the application as they did not have any claims in respect of the enforcement of the judgment of the Vologda Town Court of 10 January 2001.
On 18 October 2004 the Government requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases on the ground that the matter had been resolved, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non‑enforcement of the judgment.
THE LAW
The Court, having regard to the events that occurred after the notice of the application had been given to the Russian Government and after they had submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, considers that it does not have to examine the present application and that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied. That provision, in its relevant part, reads:
“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.”
In this respect the Court notes that the applicant’s successors do not intend to pursue his application because the judgment of the Vologda Town Court of 10 January 2001, as amended on 30 March 2001 and 9 December 2002, was enforced. Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, that would require it to continue the proceedings by virtue of that provision.
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