FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15190/03
by Yaroslav Vladimirovich OKHNICH
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on
13 October 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 March 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 Yaroslav Vladimirovich Okhnich, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Seryshevo-1 of the Amur Region. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant, a retired military serviceman, sued his former employer, a military unit, requesting payment of service-related benefits and costs and expenses.
On 27 May 2002 the Military Court of the Belogorsk Garrison granted the claims. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 7 June 2002.
On 17 June 2002 a writ of execution was issued. The judgment had not been enforced by the time the applicant lodged the application with the Court.
The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment and inaction of the Ministry of Finance to the Supreme Court of Russia. The Supreme Court did not initiate any proceedings with regard to the complaint but forwarded it to the Military Court of the Far-East Command.
It appears from the Government’s observations that the judgment of 27 May 2002 was enforced in the part of costs and expenses on 20 August 2003.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. He also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the refusal of the Supreme Court of Russia to examine in substance his complaint against the Ministry of Finance.
THE LAW
Article 37 § 1 of the Convention 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; ...
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 notes that on 4 March 2004 the Registry invited the applicant to submit by 15 April 2004 any written observations he might wish to make in reply to the observations submitted by the Government.
On 7 April 2004 the Registry forwarded to the applicant the Government’s observations translated into English and reminded him of the established time-limit for the submission of his observations. The applicant failed to reply.
On 14 June 2004 the Registry sent a registered letter to the applicant’s address informing him that the period allowed for submission of the observation had expired and warned him that in the absence of the observations the Court might consider that the he did not wish to pursue the application. The applicant received the letter on 14 July 2004 but no reply has been received.
In these circumstances the Court finds, having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, that the applicant has lost interest in his application and no longer intends to pursue it before the Court. 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 examination of the application to be continued. 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 to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy