FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 12324/03
by Lidiya Ivanovna SLAVNAYA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 September 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 9 March 2003,
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, Mrs Lidiya Ivanovna Slavnaya, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Orsk, the Orenburg Region. She is represented before the Court by Mr S.I. Kiryukhin, a lawyer practising in Orsk. 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.
1. Judgment in the applicant’s favour
On an unspecified date the applicant brought a court action against her ex-employer, the treatment centre for alcoholics of the Orsk Division of the Ministry of Interior for recovery of unpaid salary.
On 10 September 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court of Orsk of the Orenburg Region granted her claim and awarded her RUR 28, 478 (approximately EUR 813). The court also recovered legal costs in the amount of RUR 800 (approximately EUR 22).
The judgment was not appealed against and acquired legal force on 23 September 2002.
On 23 September 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court of Orsk issued the writ of execution.
2. Enforcement proceedings
On an unspecified date the applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury of the Ministry of Finance.
On 26 September 2002 the Federal Treasury returned the writ of execution to the applicant, because the Orsk Division of the Ministry of Interior did not have an account at the Federal Treasury.
On 26 September 2002 the applicant’s lawyer forwarded the writ of execution to the Bailiff’s Office of Orsk.
On an unspecified date the Bailiff’s Office returned the writ of execution to the applicant. The Bailiff explained that the writ of execution should have been forwarded for execution to the Federal Treasury because the defendant was a state institution.
On an unspecified date the applicant brought a complaint with the Sovetskiy District Court of Orsk against the Bailiff’s Office of Orsk for the failure to enforce the judgment of 10 September 2002.
On 29 January 2003 the Sovetskiy District Court of Orsk allowed the applicant’s action and ordered the Bailiff’s Office to enforce the judgment of 10 September 2002. The decision was not appealed against and became final on 9 February 2003.
On an unspecified date the Bailiff’s Office of Orsk initiated the enforcement proceedings.
On 12 July 2004 the Bailiff terminated the enforcement proceedings and returned the writ of execution to the applicant. The Bailiff stated that the defendant was the Russian Federation and that according to the national law the applicant should have sent the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance.
On 1 February 2006 the applicant signed a declaration by which she confirmed that on 23 December 2005 she had received RUR 28,478 (approximately EUR 813) and that she did not want to pursue her application.
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 judgment of 10 September 2002 of the Sovetskiy District Court of Orsk of the Orenburg Region.
THE LAW
On 17 March 2006 the Government informed the Court that they had paid to the applicant the outstanding amount in full, and that, in view of this fact, the applicant did not want to pursue her application. They joined a copy of the applicant’s declaration of 1 February 2006 in this respect.
On 8 April 2006 the applicant’s representative confirmed that the applicant wished to withdraw her application.
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 o strike an application out of the list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his/her 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 does not intend to pursue her application. Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and 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 f 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