FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 34947/03
by Nikolay Stepanovich PAVLYUK
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 September 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 Nikolay Stepanovich Pavlyuk, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Bataysk. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant sued social security authority seeking the recalculation of the amount of the disability pension due to him. On 22 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant’s claim in part. The judgment in his favour became final and enforceable. However, it appears that for a certain period of time the judgment remained unenforced.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
THE LAW
By letter dated 21 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 2 May 2007.
By letter dated 13 August 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 2 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. The Court received the advice of receipt showing that its letter of 13 August 2007 had reached the applicant’s last known address on 21 August 2007. However, as follows from the receipt card, the applicant did not reside at that address. The Court further notes that the applicant did not inform the Court of his new contact details if he had moved.
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