FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13995/05
by Yuriy Aleksandrovich SHAKUROV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 October 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S.Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 March 2005,
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 Yuriy Aleksandrovich Shakurov, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lived in Deputatskiy, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya). The Russian Government (“the Government”) are 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 6 March 2003 the applicant brought a court action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. He sought to recover the monetary value of the state-issued promissory notes for the purchase of a Russian-made car.
On 8 April 2003 the Ust-Yanskiy District Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him RUR 138, 967 (approximately EUR 3, 926).
On 5 May 2003 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) upheld the judgment on appeal. The judgment entered into force, but it has been never enforced.
On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) allowed the Ministry of Finance’s application for supervisory review of the judgement of 8 April 2003 as upheld by the decision of 5 May 2003 and remitted the matter for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya).
On 14 October 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya), by way of supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 8 April 2003 and the decision of 5 May 2003 and dismissed the applicant’s claim. No ordinary appeal lies against that judgment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 8 April 2003 and its subsequent quashing by way of supervisory review.
THE LAW
On 5 October 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 20 January 2006 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were sent to the applicant’s home address.
As no response was received, on 19 June 2006 the Registry sent a letter by registered mail to the applicant’s home address. The Court noted that the failure to respond to that letter 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 19 June 2006 was not delivered to the applicant because he had died.
The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant died and that no member of his family or heir has expressed a wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in his stead.
In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application, that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and that the case should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine that would require to continue the proceedings by the virtue of that provision.
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 NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy