FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10041/04
by Mikhail Grigoryevich KREMNEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 February 2004,
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, Mr Mikhail Grigoryevich Kremnev, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in the town of Shakhty in the Rostov Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, the 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.
On 3 March 2003 the Shakhty Town Court upheld the applicant’s action against the Shakhty Town Council and awarded him 24,172.39 Russian roubles. The judgment became final on 18 June 2003 when the Rostov Regional Court upheld it.
According to the Government, the judgment was enforced in full on 22 April 2004.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 3 March 2003, as upheld on 18 June 2003, had not been enforced.
THE LAW
On 26 March 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 25 July 2007 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 7 August 2007 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 9 October 2007.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 9 October 2007, on 22 January 2008 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 22 January 2008 reached the applicant on 7 February 2008. No response followed.
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 notes that the applicant was requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.
In these circumstances it considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) 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