FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30735/03
by Pavel Konstantinovich KHASANOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Pavel Konstantinovich Khasanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Bataysk, the Rostov Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by their former Representative, Mr P. Laptev, and subsequently by their new Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1987 the applicant took part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster.
On 21 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region granted his claim against the Welfare Office of the Administration of Bataysk (“the authority”) for recalculation of disability allowance and ordered the authority to pay the applicant a monthly disability allowance of 4,800 Russian roubles (RUB) and a food allowance of RUB 576 to be index-linked in accordance with national legislation. On 16 April 2003 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment. The judgment of 21 January 2003 was not executed.
On 24 October 2003 a judge of the Rostov Regional Court allowed the authority’s application for supervisory review of the judgment of 21 January 2003 as upheld by the decision of 16 April 2003 and remitted the matter for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court.
On 4 December 2003 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 21 January 2003 and the decision of 16 April 2003 and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the first instance court.
On 25 December 2003 the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region applied a different method of calculation of payments and recovered in the applicant’s favour RUB 34,500 over the period between 1 January 2002 and 1 January 2004 and established that as of 1 January 2004 the applicant was entitled to a monthly compensation of RUB 3,937 to be index-linked in future. The judgment was not appealed against and became final ten days later.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 21 January 2003 as upheld on 6 April 2003 and its subsequent quashing by way of supervisory review.
THE LAW
By letter dated 2 November 2006 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 8 January 2007.
By letters dated 1 February and 29 May 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 8 January 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. However, no response has been received.
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