FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42868/04
by Vladimir Vasilyevich PLYUSNIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrL. Loucaides, 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 22 October 2004,
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 Vladimir Vasilyevich Plyusnin, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Yessentuki, the Stavropol Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their new Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a Chernobyl pensioner. On 1 December 2003 the Yessentuki Town Court of the Stavropol Region granted his claim against the Welfare Office of Yessentuki. The court recovered in his favour a lump‑sum compensation for food allowance in the amount of 1,823.48 Russian roubles (RUB) and a disability allowance in the amount of RUB 268.97. The court also increased the monthly food allowance to RUB 413.08 and the annual disability allowance to RUB 688.47. The judgment was not appealed against and acquired legal force on 16 December 2003.
On 23 December 2003 the Yessentuki Town Court issued writs of execution and on 26 July 2004 the enforcement proceedings were instituted.
On 7 September 2004 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued on the ground that the debtor had no sufficient funds.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 1 December 2003.
THE LAW
On 20 October 2006 the Government forwarded to the Court a copy of an agreement of 25 July 2006 concluded between the Welfare Department of the Administration of Yessentuki and the applicant. The agreement was duly signed by both parties.
The relevant part of the agreement, as translated from Russian, provided as follows:
“The Welfare Office of Yessentuki, hereinafter “the defendant”, represented by Ms Panasenko Galina Ivanovna, the head at interim of the Welfare Office ... and a national of the Russian Federation, Mr Plyusnin Vladimir Vasilyevich, the applicant, ... reached an agreement on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in order to terminate the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights on the following terms:
1) Under the present agreement the defendant shall pay the applicant out of the federal budget of the Russian Federation 3,939.52 euros in compensation for non‑pecuniary damage for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of the Yessentuki Town Court of 1 December 2003...., to be converted into the national currency at the rate established by the Central Bank of Russia at the date of payment. The indicated amount shall be free of any taxes and will be payable within three months following the approval by the European Court of Human Rights of the present agreement and adoption of the decision to strike the application out of its list of cases. The said payment will constitute the final settlement of the case.
2) Mr Plyusnin Vladimir Vasilyevich declares that he has no more claims against the defendant on the facts submitted in his application in the European Court [of Human Rights], provided that the provisions of the first paragraph are satisfied.
3) Once the provisions of the first paragraph are satisfied, the defendant and the applicant undertake to inform the European Court [of Human Rights] thereof.
4) The present agreement constitutes the final settlement of the dispute. The defendant and the applicant undertake not to request the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court [of Human Rights] under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention...”
On 23 June 2007 the applicant informed the Court, that the judgment of 1 December 2003 had been quashed, on his initiative, and the case had been remitted to the first instance court for a fresh examination. He submitted that further examination of his case was no longer justified and requested the Court to strike it out of its list of cases.
The Court takes note of the settlement reached between the parties and of the applicant’s wish to withdraw the application. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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 NielsenLoukis Loucaides
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy