THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 70542/01
by Aleksey Semenovich KURAKIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
1 February 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrB.M. Zupančič, President,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 December 2000,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksey Semenovich Kurakin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Alatyr. The respondent Government are 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.
The applicant lived and worked in the Extreme North for over 15 years. In 1997 he moved from the Magadan Region to Alatyr, the Republic of Chuvashiya. He released the flat he had occupied in the Magadan Region and applied for compensation provided by legislation. As it was not paid to him, on 6 November 1998 the Prosecutor instituted civil proceedings on his behalf against the Administration of the Srednekanskiy District of the Magadan Region.
On 12 March 1999 the Srednekanskiy District Court of the Magadan Region granted the claim and awarded the applicant RUR 17,766.10.
The applicant received the amount under the judgment in instalments during three years. The final payment was made on 16 May 2002.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that as a result of lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour the amount he eventually received was significantly devalued.
THE LAW
The Court, having regard to the events that occurred after the notice of the application had been given to the Russian Government and after they had submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, considers that it does not have to examine the present application and that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied. That provision, in its relevant part, reads:
“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.”
In this respect the Court notes that on 6 July 2004 the Registry informed the applicant in a letter that a notice of the application had been given to the respondent Government. On 1 October 2004 the Registry sent the applicant the Government's observations on the admissibility and merits of the application and invited him to submit his observations in reply by 19 November 2004. The applicant did not reply. Furthermore, on 12 October 2004 the Registry received its letter of 6 July 2004 returned by the post because the applicant no longer resided at the address indicated. The Court further notes that the applicant did not inform the Registry about the change of his address.
In these circumstances, having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant has lost interest in his application and no longer intends to pursue it before the Court. 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent BergerBoštjan M. Zupančič
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy