FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39050/04
by ZAO ‘PROMETEY’
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 December 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 20 October 2004,
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 is a joint stock company ZAO ‘Prometey’ specialising in recycling industrial waste, having its registered seat in Kamensk-Uralskiy, the Sverdlovsk Region. It was represented before the Court by Mr D. Pankov, a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 August 2003 the applicant asked the Natural Resources Department of the Uralskiy Federal Circuit (“the Department”) to renew its licence for handling hazardous waste.
Since the Department had been delaying the decision, on 19 May 2004 the applicant asked the Commercial Court of the Sverdlovsk Region to declare the Department’s inaction unlawful.
On 7 July 2004 the Commercial Court of the Sverdlovsk Region declared the Department’s inaction unlawful and obliged it to pass a decision upon the applicant’s request. The judgment was not appealed against and on 9 August 2004 became final and enforceable.
However, on the date of submission of the above application before the Court, the Department had still not passed the decision in question.
On 5 August 2005 the applicant was informed that the decision had been not to renew the licence.
The applicant challenged the lawfulness of the above refusal before a court, but on 9 February 2006 the Federal Commercial Court of the Sverdlovsk Region in the final instance dismissed the applicant’s claim.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto about continued non-enforcement of the judgment of 7 July 2004 and the impossibility to conduct their activities.
THE LAW
On 9 February 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 25 May 2007 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received.
The Court asked the applicant to submit its written observations by 25 July 2007.
On 26 June 2007 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 25 July 2007, on 1 October 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application. On 31 October 2007 the Court received the advice of receipt showing that its letter of 1 October 2007 had reached the applicant on 17 October 2007. 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. The applicant subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of its failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefore that the applicant 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 view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
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