FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5581/04
by Vladimir KONONENKO
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 October 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 Vladimir Mikhaylovich Kononenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in the Sangar village in the Yakutia (Sakha) Republic. The respondent Government were 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.
In 1999 and 2000 the applicant was employed as a worker by the Kobyayskiy Municipal Directorate for Housing Maintenance but received no salary for his work.
On 12 March 2000 the Labour Disputes Commission upheld the applicant’s claim against the Municipal Directorate for 34,200 Russian roubles (“RUB”) in respect of unpaid salary.
By judicial orders of 12 January, 30 April and 8 June 2001, the Kobyayskiy District Court of the Yakutia (Sakha) Republic ordered the Municipal Directorate to pay salary arrears to the applicant to the total amount of RUB 44,942.
On 25 March 2002 the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 14 of the Kobyayskiy District of the Yakutia (Sakha) Republic granted the applicant’s claim for adjustment of previous awards in line with inflation and held that the Municipal Directorate should pay him RUB 154,143.
According to the information submitted by the Government, in January 2004 the applicant left the work place but never returned. As he could not be found at home or elsewhere, on 1 March 2004 the police declared him missing. The applicant has not been located ever since and his whereabouts are not known.
The Court’s letter of 26 February 2007 was returned to the Court with the postman’s mention “The addressee died”.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Articles 4 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he had not been paid for his work.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant has been missing since 2004 and that his whereabouts are unknown. He is presumed dead at his old place of residence which is the only contact address available to the Court. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see, for example, Pado v. Poland (dec.), no. 75108/01, 9 March 2004). 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, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
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