FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3564/04
by Ivan KOKOVIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 November 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 Ivan Nikolayevich Kokovin, is a Russian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Kamensk-Uralskiy in the Sverdlovsk Region. The respondent Government are represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, 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 1954 the applicant participated in Soviet secret tests of nuclear weapons and was exposed to radioactive emissions. In 1996 the applicant received a certificate attesting to his status as a veteran of special-purpose forces.
On 14 November 2002 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Krasnogorskiy District Court of Kamensk-Uralskiy by which the Labour and Social Development Ministry was to pay him monthly compensation for the damage to his health starting from 1 November 2002 and also pay him 54,072.92 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of the period from December 2000 to October 2002.
On 17 June 2003 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment in principle but shifted the obligation to make payments onto the Ministry of Finance. Monthly payments were to be effected by the Social Security Department of Kamensk-Uralskiy.
Enforcement proceedings were instituted but the judgment was not executed for a long time, despite the applicant’s complaints to various authorities.
In 2004 the applicant applied to the District Court, seeking to obtain adjustment of the unpaid amounts in line with inflation, interest on the amounts outstanding, compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He also asked the court to fix a time-limit for enforcement of the 2002 judgment.
By final judgment of 25 May 2004, the Sverdlovsk Regional Court awarded the applicant against the Ministry of Finance RUB 33,959.69 in respect of adjustment of the original award for inflation and RUB 44,600 in respect of compensation for the health damage for the period from 1 November 2002 to 29 February 2004. It dismissed the applicant’s claims for the amounts outstanding, non-pecuniary damage and fixing a specific time-limit for enforcement as having no grounds in the domestic law.
Finally, on 3 November 2004 the Krasnogorskiy District Court awarded the applicant RUR 23,221.88 against the Social Security Department of Kamensk-Uralskiy in respect of compensation for the health damage for the period from 1 May to 30 November 2004. The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 15 November 2004.
According to the Government, on 2 August 2006 the amounts due were credited into the applicant’s bank account.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the domestic authorities’ failure to pay the outstanding compensation awarded by a judicial decision and discrimination against him as a special-forces veteran.
THE LAW
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 observes that, by letter of 25 July 2007, the Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicant who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 26 September 2007. No response was received from the applicant.
By letter of 6 November 2007 sent by registered mail, the applicant was advised that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court would 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. No response from the applicant was received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be considered as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Moreover, given that the judgment in the applicant’s favour appears to have been enforced, it considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of his complaints (Article 37 § 1 in fine). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy