FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26749/03
by Irina Vasilyevna MARTYNENKO
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 May 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 June 2003,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Irina Vasilyevna Martynenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Linevo, the Novosibirsk Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs Milinchuk, the former 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 participated in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. As a result she suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions and was awarded compensation to be increased on a regular basis in accordance with the law.
In 2003 she sued the Social Welfare Authorities of the Iskitim District of the Novosibirsk Region and the Novosibirsk Region branch of the State Treasury for recalculation of the compensation in line with the inflation rate.
On 15 January 2004 the Iskitim District Court of the Novosibirsk Region issued a judgment in the applicant’s favour. She was awarded 1,345 Russian roubles (RUB) in monthly payments, plus RUB 5,600 as arrears for 2002‑2004. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
It appears that the amounts the applicant actually received were lower than the sum indicated in the judgment, and that they have not received the arrears due for 2002-2004.
COMPLAINTS
Without relying on any Convention Article the applicant complained that the social benefits she was entitled to were inadequate, that the court awards she received were too small and that the judgment in her favour had not been executed in full.
THE LAW
On 5 December 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government
By letter dated 14 March 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 16 May 2008.
By letter dated 1 August 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 16 May 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received this letter on 16 August 2008. However, no response has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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 strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy