FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30028/02
by Eduard Nikolayevich OGLOBLIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 July 2002,
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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Eduard Nikolayevich Ogloblin, is a Russian national who was born in 1937 and lives in the Voronezh Region. The respondent Government are 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.
1. Pension dispute
On 30 August 2000 the Pavlovskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region allowed the applicant’s action against the Pavlovskiy District Welfare Office of the Voronezh Region (Павловский муниципальный отдел по социальной защите населения Воронежской области) and awarded him 1, 476 roubles (approximately 42 euros).
The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 10 September 2000.
On 3 November 2000 the bailiffs’ service opened enforcement proceedings.
On 21 May 2001 the bailiffs returned the writ of execution to the applicant because the debtor had no available funds.
By the date of the lodging of the application with the Court the judgment of 30 August 2000 remained unenforced.
2. Housing problem
The applicant applied to the Administration of the Voronezh Region in order to be provided with housing or to obtain a grant for building a house in accordance with the Federal Law on forced migrants. His request was dismissed because of the lack of funds.
The applicant did not bring any court proceedings in this respect.
3. Domestic settlement
On 2 November 2005 the authorities enforced in full the judgment of 30 August 2000.
On 26 January 2006 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had accepted an offer in settlement of his application, namely the amount of RUR 1,476 (approximately EUR 42) in compensation for the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 30 August 2000 and legal costs and expenses incurred before the Court. They enclosed a copy of a friendly settlement agreement dated 27 December 2005 and signed by an official representing the Government and the applicant. Its relevant part, as translated from Russian, provides as follows:
“The Government of the Russian Federation represented by Mr V.B. Popov, the head of the Labour and Social development department of the Voronezh Region, and Mr Eduard Nikolayevich Ogloblin, the applicant, reached an agreement ...on the following terms:
(a) Under the present agreement the Government of the Russian Federation shall pay the applicant RUR 1,476 in compensation for a delay in the enforcement of the final judgment as well as in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the European Court [of Human Rights]. The indicated amount shall be paid in Russian currency within five days from the date on which the friendly settlement agreement is signed. The said payment will constitute the final settlement of the case.
(b) Mr Eduard Nikolayevich Ogloblin declares that he has no more claims against the Russian Federation on the facts submitted in his application in the European Court, provided that the provisions of paragraph (a) are satisfied.
Once the provisions of paragraph (a) are satisfied, the Russian Federation and the applicant undertake to inform the European Court [of Human Rights] thereof.
The present agreement constitutes the final settlement of the dispute. The Russian Federation and the applicant undertake not to request the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention.”
The Government also informed the Court that the amount of compensation stipulated in the agreement of 27 December 2005 had been paid to the applicant in full on 28 December 2005.
On 27 January 2006 the Court transmitted a copy of the above agreement to the applicant and invited him to formally confirm that he had accepted the settlement in question and would not further pursue his application.
On 17 February 2006 the applicant submitted his observations and informed the Court that he intended to pursue his application.
On 27 April 2006 the Government invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant did not refer to any particular Article of the Convention, but from his submissions it appeared that he complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Pavlovskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region of 30 August 2000.
2. He complained about the refusal of the local administration to provide him with housing.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant does not want to withdraw his application. Nevertheless, the Court will examine whether the circumstances call for the striking the case out of the list, as the Government suggested.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“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; or
(b) the matter has been resolved; or
(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the 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 Court recalls that in the recent cases Paritchi v. Moldova ((dec.), no. 54396/00, 1 March 2005) and Podbolotova v. Russia ((dec.), no. 26091/02, 24 November 2005) it made recourse to Article 37 § 1 (c) in the situations where the applicants first settled their cases at the domestic level but then disagreed to regard their case settled and insisted on the examination of their applications. The Court sees no reason to depart from this practice in the present case. It considers that, in the circumstances of the case, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
The Court takes note of the settlement reached between the parties, the authenticity of the respective agreement having not been contested by the applicant.
Against this background, the Court is satisfied that the settlement in the present case is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the examination of the application by virtue of that Article.
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides 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