FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27413/03
by Svetlana Ivanovna KOLUPAYEVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 June 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Svetlana Ivanovna Kolupayeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in the Ivanovo Region. 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.
The applicant receives welfare payments for her child. She sued a local welfare authority for arrears in those payments for 1998-2000.
On 4 January 2002 the Justice of Peace of the 3rd Circuit of the Vichugskiy District of the Ivanovo Region granted her claim and awarded the applicant 14,237.43 Russian roubles against the respondent authority.
The applicant submitted that the domestic authorities failed to enforce the judgment of 4 January 2002.
In their observations the Government contended that the above judgment had been fully enforced in October 2004.
COMPLAINT
Without referring to any Convention provision, the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 4 January 2002.
THE LAW
The Court notes that on 13 September 2005 the Registry informed the applicant in a letter that a notice of the application had been given to the respondent Government.
On 9 December 2005 the Registry sent to the applicant the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application and invited her to submit her observations in reply by 10 February 2006. The applicant did not reply. On 13 March 2006 the Court advised the applicant that she had not complied with the time-limits for submission of her observations, and that in the absence of an application for extension of the time-limits the Court might conclude that she was no longer interested in pursuing the application and decide to strike it out of its list of cases. The Court received no reply from the applicant.
In these circumstances, having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant has lost interest in her application and no longer intends to pursue it before the Court. 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 examination of the application to be continued.
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
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 Rosakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy