FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30774/03
by Mikhail OSIPOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 August 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 Mikhail Vitalyevich Osipov, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Bataysk in the Rostov Region. 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 and then by Mrs V. Milinchuk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant sued the local Social Security Committee for an increased pension and arrears.
By judgment of 21 January 2003, the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region granted his claim in part. On 16 April 2003 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment.
On 4 December 2003 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 21 January 2003 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case to the Town Court.
On 25 December 2003 the Town Court granted the applicant’s claims in part. In 2004 the applicant brought further proceedings for re-adjustment of his pension. By judgments of 22 April 2004 and 12 September 2005 the Town Court granted his claims. It appears that those judgments were enforced in January, December 2004 and December 2005, respectively.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgments of 21 January, 25 December 2003, 22 April 2004 and 12 September 2005.
The applicant complained under the same provisions about the quashing of the judgment of 21 January 2003 by way of supervisory review.
Finally, the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts had wrongly decided his cases.
THE LAW
By letter dated 30 March 2007 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 30 May 2007.
By letter dated 13 July 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 30 May 2007 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.
As no acknowledgment-of-receipt card had returned to the Court, on 18 January 2008 another letter in the same terms was sent to the applicant. He received this letter on 29 January 2008. However, no response has followed.
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