FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 69811/01
by Yelena Vadimovna UTINA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsR. Jaeger,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 November 2000,
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, Ms Yelena Vadimovna Utina, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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 is a mother of two children. Under the laws of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region she is entitled to a special allowance for the children’s maintenance. Since the allowance was not paid in time, on 4 December 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Authority.
On 28 February 2000 the Nizhniy Novgorod District Court granted the applicant’s claims in part and recovered the unpaid allowance. On 5 May 2000 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. On 26 January 2001 a bailiff’s service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment. However, it appears that for a certain period of time the judgment has not been executed.
THE LAW
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 advised that she was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. On 26 April 2005 the Court sent the applicant a warning letter by registered mail, informing her the Court might decide to strike her case out of its list under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. No response has been received to date and the applicant did not inform the Court of her new contact details if she had moved. The Court infers there from that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, it 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy