FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21903/04
by Viktor LUKASHENKO
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrA. Kovler,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 June 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 Viktor Vladimirovich Lukashenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Gukovo in the Rostov Region. The respondent Government were 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 was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster and was entitled to monthly social payments.
1. First application for an increase of monthly payments
In July 1999 the applicant sued the Gukovo Social Security Office for an increase in monthly payments and arrears. On 29 October 1999 the Gukovo Town Court awarded him RUR 337,180.48 in arrears and increased monthly payments to RUR 13,953.30. The judgment was enforced in 2002.
On 10 June 2004 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court, by way of supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 29 October 1999 and remitted the case. It appears that the proceedings are pending.
2. Second application for an increase of monthly payments
In 2002 the applicant again sued the Gukovo Social Security Office for arrears and an increase in monthly payments. On 2 December 2002 the Gukovo Town Court awarded him RUR 209,674.42 (approximately 6,615 euros) in arrears and increased the monthly payments to RUR 30,000 (approximately 946 euros). On 29 January 2003 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The judgment was not enforced.
On 8 August 2006 the Gulkovo Town Court quashed the judgment of 2 December 2002 due to a newly-discovered circumstance.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the quashing of the judgment of the Gukovo Town Court of 29 October 1999 by way of supervisory review.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of the Gukovo Town Court of 2 December 2002, as upheld on 29 January 2003.
THE LAW
On 22 July 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 23 November 2006 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 30 January 2007.
On 11 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 the indicated time-limit, on 1 March 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. The applicant received the letter on 13 March 2007. To date he has not replied.
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 applicant was advised that he was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He was subsequently reminded thereof. He was also informed about the consequence of his failure to submit the observations. The applicant has not replied to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, it 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 the Court 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