FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9500/09
Pavel Vasilyevich MUSIYENKO
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 December 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Erik Møse,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 December 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Pavel Vasilyevich Musiyenko, is a Russian national, who was born in 1934 and lives in Zverevo.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto about non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour of 25 February 2003 by the Justice of the Peace of the 1st Court Circuit of Zverevo of the Rostov Region by municipal unitary company “Managing Company of Housing and Communal Services” of Zverevo. The applicant’s complaint about non-enforcement was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 13 September 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 2 August 2012 and that no extension of that time-limit 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 applicants do not intend to pursue the application.
On 10 October 2012 the applicant received the letter. No reply followed.
THE LAW
Having regard to the correspondence with the applicant, the Court finds that he 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy