FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32567/02
by Yuriy Aleksandrovich SIKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 August 2002,
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 Sikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1942 and lives in the town of Cherkessk in the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic. The respondent 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.
In 2001 the applicant asked the Cherkessk Town Court to confirm that in 1957 he had sustained a work-related injury. The applicant claimed that he had requested the social services to calculate his pension payments taking into account that he had received his injury at work. The social services refused and instructed him to obtain a court judgment confirming that he had a work-related injury.
On 24 December 2001 the Cherkessk Town Court granted the applicant’s request and held that in 1957 he had received a work-related injury. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
On 31 May 2002 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karachayevo-Cherkessiya, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 24 December 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
The Cherkessk Town Court received the case-file and listed the first hearing for 18 July 2002. The hearing was adjourned because the applicant defaulted. The following hearing fixed for 25 July 2002 was also adjourned due to the applicant’s absence. On the same day the Cherkessk Town Court issued a decision discontinuing the proceedings because it appeared that the applicant had lost interest in his case. The decision of 25 July 2002 was not appealed against and became final.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 2, 4, 13 and 14 of the Convention that the final judgment in his favour was quashed by way of a supervisory review and that he was forced to work in his childhood.
THE LAW
On 11 October 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 20 March 2006 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit written observations in reply by 23 May 2006.
On 18 April 2006 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 23 May 2006, on 12 June 2006 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application. The applicant did not reply.
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 the applicant was requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that 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.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy