FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 12508/07
by Valeriy Pavlovich SHCHEBETOVSKIY
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 December 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Valeriy Pavlovich Shchebetovskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Omsk, the Omsk Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, 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 15 December 2004 the Kirovskiy District Court of Omsk ordered the Omsk Town Council to provide the applicant with a flat, to be granted on a priority basis. The judgment became final on 28 December 2004. It appears that it has not been enforced to date.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
THE LAW
By letter dated 12 September 2008 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 14 November 2008.
By letter dated 17 December 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant's observations had expired on 14 November 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
On 6 February 2009 the letter was returned by the post office to the Court as the applicant had left his place of residence and his new address was unknown.
The applicant failed to inform the Court of his change of address or otherwise inform the Court of his whereabouts. Neither did he submit any information following his lodging the application on 28 December 2006.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate 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 NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy