FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 64153/00
by Anatoliy Nikolayevich VYSOTSKIY
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 November 2003 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrE. Levits,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 August 2000,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Nikolayevich Vysotskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in the station of Malchevskaya in the Rostov Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Manuylov, a lawyer practising in the Rostov Region. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation in the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 8 September 1999 the Millerovo Town Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant’s civil action against the social security office and ordered a lump sum of RUR 63,096 and monthly payments of RUR 2,953.04 with subsequent indexation. The judgment subsequently became final and enforceable.
At the time the application was lodged with the Court the judgment remained unenforced.
On 30 April 2002 the application was communicated to the Russian Government.
On 8 July 2002 the applicant signed a settlement agreement with the local social security office. The applicant received the amounts outstanding and compensation for non-pecuniary damage of RUR 40,000 (approximately EUR 1300).
On the same day the Millerovo Town Court of the Rostov Region approved the terms of the friendly settlement.
THE LAW
On 27 August 2002 the Court received from the respondent Government a declaration signed by the applicant on 18 July 2002 and addressed to the European Court of Human Rights. Its relevant part, as translated from Russian, read as follows:
“I, Vysotskiy Anatoliy Nikolayevich, born in 1949... living at [the applicant’s address].
In connection with the fulfilment of all of my claims concerning the compensation payments under the judgment of the Millerovo Town Court of 8 October 1999[*], I request you to withdraw my application to the European Court of Human Rights. I have no claims against the State authorities of the Russian Federation in respect of [un]timely payments of health compensation benefits...”
In the same letter the respondent Government affirmed that a settlement had been reached with the applicant.
On 23 October 2002 and 14 May 2003 the applicant was invited to submit his comments on the Government’s letter.
On 11 July 2003 the Court received a letter from the applicant dated 2 June 2003. Its relevant part, as translated from Russian, read as follows:
“...I will try to explain everything to you. The Government and I have reached a friendly settlement and I have been paid all amounts due under the writs of execution. On this issue I have no claims whatsoever against the Government. Therefore, I think that no further proceedings in this matter are needed. However, at present I have some new troubles.
Under the court judgment of 8 September 1999 all amounts were to be index-linked. Yet until today no indexation of these amounts has been made. Although I applied to the courts several times, I received refusals for unknown reasons. Since 14 November 2002 I cannot do anything, I am stuck. This is why I believe that horrible violations of my rights, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, are taking place. I request you to investigate this matter”.
The applicant annexed to the letter a copy of his statement of claim against the local social security office concerning an increase in his disability pension to take account of the inflation. According to a stamp on the statement, the Millerovo Town Court of the Rostov Region received it for processing on 15 November 2002.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of that Article.
Article 37 § 1 (a) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if :
“the applicant does not intend to pursue his application.”
Article 37 § 1 in fine states :
“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 subject matter of the present application was the continuing non-enforcement of the judgment of the Millerovo Town Court of the Rostov Region of 8 September 1999. The Government paid the amounts outstanding and compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant and a settlement agreement was signed and approved by a domestic court. Thereafter the applicant advised the Court that he did not intend to pursue his application.
The Court further notes that the applicant’s letter of 2 June 2003 does not touch upon the validity of the settlement or its terms and conditions. Nor did the applicant challenge the validity of his declaration of 18 July 2002. Instead, the applicant sought to present a new claim concerning an increase in his disability pension to which he is allegedly entitled under the applicable domestic laws. The Court notes that this issue goes beyond the scope of the present application and, more importantly, it has yet to be determined by the domestic courts. Nothing prevents the applicant from applying subsequently to the Court, should he consider it expedient to do so.
In these circumstances the Court is satisfied that the applicant does not want to pursue the subject matter of the present application (cf. Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in fine).
Accordingly, the application 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
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[*] The date is thus indicated in the declaration. In fact, the judgment in question was delivered on 8 September 1999.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy