FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36675/04
by Tatyana Ivanovna KISELEVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, 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 31 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, Ms Tatyana Ivanovna Kiseleva, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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 1 March 2004 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant’s claim against her former employer, the Moscow Department of the Ministry of the Interior, for recovery of pension. The court awarded her pension arrears for the period between 1 July 2003 and 29 February 2004 in the amount of 53,884.24 Russian roubles (RUR) and ordered to pay her a monthly pension in the amount of RUR 6,735.53 as of 1 March 2004 to be index-linked in accordance with the legislation. The judgment was not appealed against and acquired legal force on 12 March 2004. Enforcement proceedings were instituted on 26 April 2004.
As the judgment was not executed in due course the applicant filed numerous complaints before various State authorities.
On 23 July 2004 the Deputy Head of the Finance Department of the Ministry of the Interior replied to the applicant that the method of pension calculation applied in the judgment did not comply with the legislation and, therefore, the judgment could not be executed.
On 26 November 2005 pension arrears in the amount of RUR 53,884.24 for the period between 1 July 2003 and 29 February 2004 were paid to the applicant. On the same date she received pension arrears in the amount of RUR 47,148.71 for the period between 1 March and 30 September 2004.
On 6 December 2005 the applicant received pension arrears in the amount of RUR 20,206 for the period between 1 October and 31 December 2004.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow of 1 March 2004.
THE LAW
On 1 September 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 4 December 2006 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were forwarded to the applicant who was invited to submit her written observations in reply by 5 February 2007.
On 10 January 2007 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 5 February 2007, on 16 March 2007 the Court advised the applicant by registered mail that her failure to respond might lead to the conclusion that she had lost interest in the case. The applicant was also informed that in such circumstances the Court might strike the case out of its list of cases.
As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 16 March 2007 reached the applicant on 2 April 2007.
The applicant did not reply.
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. She subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of her failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue her 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 strike the application out of its list of cases.
André WampachChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy