FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39087/04
by Aleksey Grigoryevich MALYSH
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Loukis Loucaides,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoli Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 February 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 Aleksey Grigoryevich Malysh, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Blagoveshchensk. 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 parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 6 September 2002 the Justice of Peace of the 6th Circuit of Blagoveschensk of the Amur Region awarded the applicant 14,809 Russian roubles against the Ministry of Finance. The judgment became enforceable.
On 18 November 2002 the Presidium of the Amur Regional Court, acting on supervisory review, quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
On 10 June 2003 the Blagoveshchensk Town Court of the Amur Region dismissed the applicant’s claims in the final instance.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 September 2002.
THE LAW
On 29 August 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 15 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 23 January 2007.
On 19 December 2006 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 28 June 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 letter was returned as unclaimed.
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 by a registered letter. However, he did not collect the Court’s letter and it was returned to the Court as unclaimed. The Court infers therefrom that he does not intend to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the Court’s list of cases.
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