FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9043/07
by Svetlana PETUSHKOVA and Others
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 February 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 April 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 applicants named below are Russian nationals. They live in Velikie Luki. The Government were represented before the Court by Mrs V. Milinchuk, 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.
The applicants are educators at a municipal educational centre (центр образования) in Velikie Luki. By virtue of section 55 § 8 of the Education Act, they were entitled to a monthly allowance for purchase of books and magazines (компенсация за книгоиздательскую продукцию и периодические издания) which had not been paid to them from 1996 to 1999.
The applicants applied to a court seeking recovery of the unpaid allowance and compensation for the damage sustained because of the delay in paying the allowance.
On 30 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 34 of Velikie Luki in the Pskov Region granted the applicants’ claim for the unpaid allowance and held that the Education Directorate of the Velikie Luki Town Council should reimburse them the following amounts:3,540.39 Russian roubles (“RUR”) to Mr Anatoliy Fedorovich Petrov,RUR 3,536.94 to Mrs Valentina Panfilovna Novikova,RUR 2,337.72 to Mr Leonid Valentinovich Lapshin,RUR 3,233.34 to Mrs Tatyana Arsentyevna Fadeyeva,RUR 2,003.76 to Mr Nikolay Dmitriyevich Zhagorov,RUR 3,626.76 to Mrs Galina Grigoryevna Kuryakova,RUR 3,521.76 to Mrs Svetlana Stefanovna Petushkova,RUR 3,612.84 to Mrs Svetlana Grigoryevna Naberezhneva,RUR 3,612.84 to Mrs Maria Yuryevna Rossinevich,RUR 3,521.76 to Mr Viktor Dmitriyevich Kozlov,RUR 3,751.99 to Mrs Lidia Pavlovna Kazakova,RUR 3,751.99 to Mrs Nina Mikhaylovna Nikitina,RUR 3,751.99 to Mr Ivan Ivanovich Yuvinalyev,RUR 3,751.99 to Mrs Lyudmila Ivanovna Yekimova,RUR 3,751.99 to Mrs Valentina Aleksandrovna Yermolenko,RUR 3,751.99 to Mrs Valentina Dmitriyevna Vasilyeva,RUR 3,751.99 to Mrs Lyudmila Grigoryevna Tsibulska,RUR 3,751.99 to Mrs Galina Pavlovna Ilyina,RUR 3,018.29 to Mr Igor Alekseyevich Kondyurin, andRUR 3,043.59 to Mrs Tatyana Aleksandrovna Zhogolyeva.
The Justice of the Peace dismissed the applicants’ claim for compensation for delayed payments.
On 2 July 2003 the Velikie Luki Town Court of the Pskov Region upheld that judgment on appeal.
By identically worded individual letters of 10 October 2007, all the applicants, except Mrs Yermolenko, informed the Court that the judgment had been enforced in April 2004 and that they did not intend to pursue their application before the Court.
The Government informed the Court about the death of Mrs Yermolenko in their letter of 26 November 2007. The Government further indicated that the applicant’s relatives had not expressed a wish to continue examination of her application.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment in their favour.
The applicants complained under the same provisions that the domestic courts wrongly dismissed their claim for compensation.
THE LAW
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1. 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.”
It follows from the applicants’ letters of 10 October 2007 that they do not intend to pursue their application. It also appears that Mrs Yermolenko had no heirs wishing to pursue the application in her stead.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, all the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court further notes that the judgment in their favour has already been enforced. It therefore considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of their complaints. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident[A1]
[A1]Check names. Adapt tabs.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy