FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7366/04
by Vasiliy Dmitriyevich SAMOYLENKO
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 November 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 A. Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 February 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vasiliy Dmitriyevich Samoylenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Ryazan. The respondent 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.
On 1 December 2003 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan partly accepted the applicant’s claim against the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ryazan Regional police department and awarded him 45,022.98 Russian roubles (RUB) in wage arrears. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. It was fully enforced on 4 July 2006.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about a delay in enforcement of the judgment of 1 December 2003.
THE LAW
On 7 November 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 5 February 2007 the Court received a letter from the Government, stating that a friendly settlement agreement had been concluded with the applicant and that he no longer intended to pursue his application. A letter of 28 December 2006 addressed to the Court by the applicant was enclosed. He informed the Court that the judgment of 1 December 2003 had been enforced in full and that he had also received RUB 10,526 in compensation for damage caused by the delay in the enforcement of that judgment. The applicant noted that he did not intend to pursue his application before the Court.
On 21 February 2007 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations by 25 April 2007 or confirm his wish to withdraw his application.
As the applicant had not replied, on 8 June 2007 he was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 8 June 2007 reached the applicant on 20 June 2007. No response followed.
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.”
The Court notes that it received a letter in which the applicant had asked the Court not to examine his application. The applicant was asked to confirm his wish to withdraw the application. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that following the enforcement of the judgment and payment of compensation the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.
In these circumstances it considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
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.
André WampachLoukis Loucaides
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy