FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24278/06
by Aleksey Alekseyevich SERYAKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on
29 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrL. Loucaides, President,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 April 2006,
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 Aleksey Alekseyevich Seryakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Novocherkassk. The Russian Government were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the 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.
On 30 August 2004 the Novocherkasskiy City Court of the Rostov Region partly granted the applicant’s claim for arrears in pension caused by the inflation lodged against his former employer, the military commissariat. The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force.
In 2005 the applicant was informed that the sums awarded to him could not be paid as the commissariat was conducting an examination of his case.
On 11 November 2005 the military commissariat lodged a request to prolong a time-limit for lodging an application for a supervisory review of the judgment. The request was based on the court’s failure to summon the commissariat for the hearing.
On 23 October 2006 the military commissariat of the Rostov Region paid the full sum awarded on 30 August 2004 by the Novocherkasskiy City Court of the Rostov Region to the applicant.
In November 2006 the Government reached an agreement with the applicant in order to terminate the proceedings before the Court. The applicant informed the Court that, having obtained the judgment debt, he had no claims against the Russian Federation based on the facts of the application filed by him with the Court.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour and the violation of his property right.
THE LAW
In December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment had been enforced and that the applicant was no longer interested in pursuing his application before the Court.
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 applicant’s letter that he does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, 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.
Søren NielsenLoukis Loucaides
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy