FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36682/03
by Vladimir Ilyich MAZILOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 October 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Ilyich Mazilov, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lives in the town of Mirniy in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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.
In 1993 the applicant acquired State commodity bonds for purchase of a Russian-made VAZ passenger car.
After the State had failed to exchange his bonds for a car, the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation claiming redemption of the bonds.
By judgment of 28 January 2003, the Mirniy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic awarded the applicant 91,500 Russian roubles. On 12 March 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment.
On an unspecified date, the debtor lodged a supervisory-review request.
On 15 July 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the judgments of 28 January and 12 March 2003, and rejected the applicant’s claims.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 28 January 2003, as upheld on 12 March 2003, had not been enforced.
THE LAW
By letter dated 3 October 2006 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 5 December 2006.
By letter dated 25 April 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 5 December 2006 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. No response has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing 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 and 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