FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18/03
by Larisa Anatolyevna VANZHULA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on
15 February 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 November 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 regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Larisa Anatolyevna Vanzhula, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in the village Storozhevaya, Kaliningrad Region. 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 1995 the applicant’s minor son got severe burns having touched bare wires of electrical communications belonging to the Ministry of Defence. The applicant instituted civil proceedings for damages.
On 28 February 2001 the Zelenchukskiy District Court of the Republic of Karachaevo-Cherkessiya partially granted the applicant’s claim against the Ministry of Defence. The court awarded her 150,000 roubles.
On 11 March 2001 the writ of execution was issued.
The judgment was executed on 28 October 2003.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the lengthy non-execution of the judgment in her favour.
THE LAW
On 23 October 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the respondent Government signed by their representative Mr P. Laptev:
“The authorities of the Russian Federation and the applicant, Ms Larisa Anatolyevna Vanzhula, application no. 18/03, have now reached the following settlement, on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Protocols to it, with regard to costs and expenses incurred by the applicant in the course of consideration of the application before the European Court of Human Rights, in order to terminate the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights on the following terms:
(a) Due to humanitarian considerations and interests of respect of human rights, the authorities of the Russian Federation will pay to the applicant the sum of 1,800 euros VAT included, to be converted in Russian roubles on the rate applicable on the date of payment, for legal costs incurred in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. It will be payable within three months after the notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.
(b) The applicant declares that, subject to the fulfilment of what is stated under (a), she has no further claims against the Russian Federation based on the facts of the application filed by her with the European Court of Human Rights.
Both the authorities of the Russian Federation and the applicant undertake to inform the European Court of Human Rights forthwith of the fulfilment of the conditions stated under (a).
The above settlement can in no way be interpreted as a recognition on behalf of the authorities of the Russian Federation of violation of any provisions of the Convention and Protocols to it.
The present settlement will constitute the final resolution of the case. The authorities of the Russian Federation and the applicant further undertake not to request the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English and Russian in two copies each, texts are authentic.”
On 16 January 2007 the Court received the above declaration signed by the applicant.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy