FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32623/04
by Anatoliy Lukich KRYUCHEK
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrL. Loucaides, President,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr A. Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 August 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Lukich Kryuchek, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Kemerovo. 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 applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 6 April 2004 the Tsentralniy District Court of Kemerovo accepted the applicant’s action against the Kemerovo Town Council. The District Court held that the Council should:
“...as a priority provide Mr Kryuchek Anatoliy Lukich, whose family comprises three members, with a well-equipped flat that meets sanitary and technical requirements, taking into account Mr Kryuchek’s right to additional living surface of a separate room.”
The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 19 April 2004. It appears that it remains unenforced.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 6 April 2004 remained unenforced and that he was unable to obtain a flat.
THE LAW
On 24 November 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
The Government did not submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. On 12 April 2007 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations by 24 May 2007.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 24 May 2007, on 9 August 2007 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 9 August 2007 reached the applicant on 4 September 2007. 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.
André WampachLoukis Loucaides
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy