VASILYEVA A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 3342/04
by Olga VASILYEVA and Others
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 December 2003,

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 applicants named below are Russian nationals. They live in Velikie Luki. The respondent 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 new Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants are educators in the municipal pre-school educational institution “Kindergarten no. 1” of Velikie Luki. They were entitled to a supplementary monthly payment for purchase of teaching aids which had not been paid to them since 1996.

On 30 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 34 of Velikie Luki in the Pskov Region granted the applicants’ claim for unpaid compensation and held that the Education Directorate of the Velikie Luki Town Council should pay the following amounts:

• 276.19 Russian roubles (“RUB”) to Mrs Olga Ivanovna Vasilieva,
• RUB 1,001.88 to Mrs Nina Ivanovna Antipova,
• RUB 1,685.69 to Mrs Tatiana Nikolayevna Panova,
• RUB 205.93 to Mrs Margarita Viktorovna Kuropteva,
• RUB 232.52 to Mrs Nina Filippovna Ivanova,
• RUB 204.93 to Mrs Natalya Aleksandrovna Shapetko,
• RUB 218.12 to Mrs Svetlana Aleksandrovna Yevseyeva,
• RUB 367.78 to Mrs Olga Ivanovna Bondarenko,
• RUB 269.04 to Mrs Irina Anatolyevna Balanchuk,
• RUB 3,571.99 to Mrs Zoya Ivanovna Ustinova,
• RUB 1,002.88 to Mrs Anna Mikhaylovna Obovskaya,
• RUB 288.33 to Mrs Nadezhda Mikhaylovna Yefimova,
• RUB 245.03 to Mrs Anna Ivanovna Serbolina,
• RUB 211.85 to Mrs Tatiana Mikhaylovna Fonicheva,
• RUB 1,001.88 to Mrs Vera Vasiliyena Ruchkina,
• RUB 227.99 to Mrs Natalya Viktorovna Ivanova,
• RUB 121.44 to Mrs Olga Borisovna Lopukhina,
• RUB 204.93 to Mrs Nina Vasiliyevna Solovyova, and
• RUB 321.04 to Mrs Galina Ivanovna Ilyina (Bodalyova).

The applicants’ claim for interest was dismissed as having no grounds in the domestic law.

On 2 July 2003 the Velikie Luki Town Court of the Pskov Region upheld that judgment on appeal and it became enforceable.

By identically worded individual letters of 19 April 2007, the applicants informed the Court that the judgment had been enforced in April 2004 and that they did not intend to pursue their application before the Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment in their favour.

The applicants complained under the same provision that the domestic courts wrongly dismissed their claim for the interest.

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.”

It follows from the applicants’ letters of 19 April 2007 that they do not intend to pursue their application. The Court further notes that the judgment in the applicants’ favour was already enforced. The Court therefore 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 Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President