FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22409/05
by SPATP - 2
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 April 2005,
Having regard to the Court's decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, SPATP-2 (“Sochi Passenger Transport Company no. 2”), is a company, incorporated in the Russian Federation since 9 June 1995 and having its registered office in the town of Sochi in the Krasnodar Region. The applicant company was represented before the Court by
Mr A. Kiryanov, a lawyer practising in the town of Taganrog in the
Rostov Region. The respondent Government were represented by
Mr G. Matyushkin, 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 31 July 1998 the applicant company sued the Rostov Regional Department of the Federal Treasury and Mrs O. in tort. A stamp on the statement of claims shows that the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of the Rostov Region received it on the same day.
On 15 December 2005 the District Court partly allowed the applicant company's action, holding that the Treasury should pay it 755,684 Russian roubles in compensation for pecuniary damage, interest thereon and legal expenses. The judgment of 15 December 2005 was upheld on appeal by the Rostov Regional Court on 8 February 2006. The judgment was enforced in full on 25 December 2007, when the Treasury credited the applicant company's bank account.
COMPLAINT
The applicant company complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 6 February 2009 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 4 June 2009 the Government's observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 12 June 2009 the Court invited the applicant company to submit its written observations in reply by 14 August 2009.
On 2 July 2009 the English version of the Government's observations was forwarded to the applicant company. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant company's observations remained unaffected.
As the applicant company's observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 14 August 2009, on 19 October 2009 the Court sent a letter by registered mail to the applicant company's representative, advising him that the failure to submit the observations might result in the strike-out of the application. As it follows from the acknowledgement of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 19 October 2009 reached the representative on 2 November 2009. No response followed.
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 company was requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. The applicant company's representative subsequently received a reminder thereof. He was also informed about a consequence of the failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant company does not intend to pursue its 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