FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23340/03
by Vladimir Antonovich SYSOYEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 January 2007 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 28 June 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, Mr Vladimir Antonovich Sysoyev, is a Russian national, born in 1932 and living in Zadono-Kagalitskaya, a locality in the Rostov Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
On an unspecified date the applicant sued his former employer - a municipal company (муниципальное унитарное предприятие «Водоканал») - for salary arrears following his unlawful dismissals from work in 1999 and 2000.
On 7 May 2001 the Semikarakorskiy District Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant’s action and awarded him RUR 8,077.82 (approximately EUR 317.04 EUR).
The enforcement proceedings were instituted.
In August 2001 the applicant received RUR 4,281.25. The rest of the judgment could not be enforced for the defendant’s lack of funds.
On 10 December 2002 the respondent was declared insolvent. It appears that the judgment remains partially unenforced.
COMPLAINT
Without invoking any Convention Article, the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Semikarakorskiy District Court of the Rostov Region of 7 May 2001.
THE LAW
On 2 December 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 8 March 2006 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were forwarded to the applicant who was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 3 May 2006.
On 31 March 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 3 May 2006, on 30 August 2006 the Registry advised the applicant by registered mail that his failure to respond may lead the Court to the conclusion that he had lost interest in the case. The applicant was also informed that in such circumstances the Court may strike the case out of its list of cases.
It follows from the advice of receipt which was returned to the Court that the letter of 30 August 2006 reached the applicant on 5 September 2006.
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