FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18967/04
by Antonina Yuryevna SHVETSOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 February 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, 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 25 April 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, Antonina Yuryevna Shvetsova, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Vetluga. 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.
The applicant worked in a federal State-owned enterprise. From January to May 2002 she did not receive any salary and had to resign without having been paid. On 11 November 2002 the applicant’s enterprise underwent reorganisation and became a part of a bigger State-owned enterprise. Meanwhile the applicant sought salary arrears from her former employer in court.
On 31 January 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the 1st Court Circuit of Vetluga granted the applicant’s claim and ordered her employer, the federal State-owned enterprise, to pay the sums claimed by the applicant, approximately EUR 256. On 27 February 2003 the Vetluzhskiy District Court in the final instance upheld the judgment.
On 5 March 2003 the Sovetskiy District Bailiff’s Office opened the enforcement proceedings.
On 18 November 2003 the proceedings were suspended on the bailiffs’ initiative as the debtor was undergoing reorganisation.
It appears that the judgment has not been enforced.
In October 2006 the Government reached an agreement with the applicant in order to terminate the proceedings before the Court. The Government undertook to pay to the applicant EUR 1000. This sum was to be paid within three months after the notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.
The applicant declared that, subject to the fulfilment of this obligation, she would not have any claims against the Russian Federation based on the facts of the application filed by her 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 her favour and the violation of her property right.
THE LAW
In December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that she and the Government had reached an agreement related to the issue of the non-enforcement of the above judgment. In view of this she was no longer interested in pursuing her 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.”
The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant reached an agreement with the authorities and that, therefore, she no longer wants 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 NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy