FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 73204/01
by Viktor KORNEYEV and Galina KORNEYEVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Loukis Loucaides,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoli Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 February 2001,
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 applicants, Mr Viktor Mikhaylovich Korneyev and Ms Galina Nikolayevna Korneyeva, are Russian nationals who were born in 1938 and 1943 respectively and live in Belgorod. The respondent Government were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their new Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants sued the Belgorod Pension Fund for recalculation of their pensions and for pension arrears.
On 24 February 2000 the Vostochniy District Court of Belgorod allowed the applicants’ claims. It ordered that the Pension Fund recalculate the applicants’ pensions and pay 4,205.22 Russian roubles (RUB) to the first applicant and RUB 4,146.51 to the second applicant in pension arrears. On 21 March 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. It became enforceable.
On 25 May 2000 the Pension Fund requested the Vostochniy District Court to reconsider the judgment of 24 February 2000 due to a newly-discovered circumstance.
On 28 August 2000 the Vostochniy District Court granted the request, quashed the judgment of 24 February 2000, and remitted the case for a new consideration. By a separate judgment of the same date, the Vostochniy District Court dismissed the applicants’ action. On 31 October 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain about non-enforcement of the judgment of the Vostochniy District Court of Belgorod of 24 February 2000 and subsequent reopening of the proceedings on account of a newly-discovered circumstance. They also complain about an insufficient pension.
THE LAW
On 14 December 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 15 May 2007 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. The Government informed the Court that the first applicant had died on 18 October 2005. The second applicant was invited to submit her written observations in reply by 26 July 2007.
As the second applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by the indicated time-limit, on 24 August 2007 she was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit her observations might result in the strike-out of the application. The second applicant received the letter on 8 September 2007. To date she has not replied.
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; or
...
(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the 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 notes that the first applicant died on 18 October 2005 and that no request has been submitted by the first applicant’s heirs to pursue the examination of the case. 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.
As regards the second applicant, she was advised that she was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. She was subsequently reminded thereof. The second applicant has not replied to date. The Court infers therefrom that she does not intend to pursue her 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.
André WampachChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy