FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4309/02
by Fedor Ivanovich ZAVYALOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 May 2001,
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 Fedor Ivanovich Zavyalov, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in the village of Chulkovo of the Moscow Region. The Russian Government were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant’s house, where he and his family were living from 1992, was among other buildings placed on a demolition list with a view to constructing the federal motorway “Moscow-Kuybyshev”. He was entitled to be resettled according to a waiting list.
In September 1998 the applicant brought an action against the Federal Direction of Auto-Roads seeking the resettlement or the improvement of living conditions. The applicant claimed that, living in the proximity of two major motorways, he and his family were negatively affected by the pollution.
On 22 May 2000 the Ramenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for resettlement. Acknowledging that the location of the house was violating the sanitary norms, the court nevertheless came to the conclusion that it was not within its competence, but rather the prerogative of the relevant self-government organs to improve the living conditions of the litigant.
On 16 November 2000 the Moscow Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the impossibility of peaceful enjoyment of his house and land plot situated in the sanitary security zone of the motorway.
The applicant also claimed that the pollution, caused by car emissions, endangers his family’s health and makes living at their home unbearable, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant’s first letter was sent to the Court on 10 May 2001. The applicant returned the completed application form on 23 August 2001.
On 30 August 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government.
On 2 February 2006 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 8 February 2006 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 5 April 2006.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by the indicated time-limit, on 27 June 2006 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in his application being struck out of the list of cases. A copy of the letter of 8 February 2006 was enclosed. The letter was sent to the applicant’s home address as indicated in his application form, the same as used for the Court’s first letter which the applicant had received.
As there was no reply from the applicant, and no acknowledgment of receipt of the Court’s letter had been delivered, on 16 October 2006 the Court sent the applicant another letter, reiterating the warning of 27 June 2006. There has been no response and no enquiries concerning his application, and no notification of any change of address.
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; or
(b) the matter has been resolved; or
...
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 applicant was advised that he was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He was subsequently reminded thereof. The applicant has not replied to date and it is not clear whether his address indicated at the time of lodging his application is still a valid one.
The Court recalls that, pursuant to Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court, “applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application”. Under that Rule, it is incumbent on the applicant to provide at least a minimum of information, namely his postal address, enabling the Court to conduct correspondence with him and to proceed with his petition. The Court observes that it has unsuccessfully tried to communicate with the applicant at his place of residence, and there are no other means of establishing contact with him. The last letter received from the applicant is dated 23 August 2001 and there have been no messages or enquiries from him since.
The Court infers therefore that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. 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.
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