FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39904/03
by Aleksandr Ivanovich KUZENKIN
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 20 November 2003,
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 Aleksandr Ivanovich Kuzenkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in the village of Pavlovsk in the Altay 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 23 January 2003 the Pavlovskiy District Court of the Altay Region upheld the applicant’s action against the Social Protection Committee of the Pavlovskiy District Council (hereafter – the Committee) and awarded him a lump sum of 5,880 Russian roubles (RUB) and monthly payments of RUB 1,490 in compensation for health damage. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
On 30 July 2003 the Pavlovskiy District Court upheld another action from the applicant against the Committee and awarded him RUB 1,752.24 in pension arrears, RUB 2,895.54 in food allowance and RUB 466.65 in compensation for health damage. It further awarded the applicant monthly payments of RUB 1,782.04 in compensation for health damage and RUB 517.39 as monthly food allowance. That judgment became final on 24 September 2003 when the Altay Regional Court upheld it on appeal.
According to the Government, the judgments of 23 January and 30 July 2003 had been enforced in full.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that the two judgments issued in his favour had not been enforced in good time.
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 12 October 2007.
On 17 September 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 12 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. 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