Přehled
Rozhodnutí
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 12196/05
by Yuriy Romanovich SHMAKOTIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L. Loucaides,
Mrs F. Tulkens,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 March 2005,
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 observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Yuriy Romanovich Shmakotin, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Udachnyy, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya). The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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.
1. Judgment in the applicant’s favour
On 14 July 2003 the applicant brought a court action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. He sought to recover the monetary value of the state-issued promissory notes for the purchase of a Russian-made car.
On 19 August 2003 the Mirninskiy District Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him RUR 102,056 ( EUR 2,883).
On 6 October 2003 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) upheld the judgment. The judgment entered into force, but it has been never enforced.
2. Supervisory review proceedings
On 17 November 2004 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) allowed the Ministry of Finance’s application for supervisory review of the judgement of 19 August 2003 as upheld by the decision of 6 October 2003 and remitted the matter for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya).
On 16 December 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya), by way of supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 19 August 2003 and the decision of 6 October 2003 and dismissed the applicant’s claim. No ordinary appeal lies against that judgment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 19 August 2003 and its subsequent quashing by way of supervisory review.
THE LAW
On 5 October 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 20 January 2006 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were forwarded to the applicant who was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 24 March 2006.
On 22 February 2006 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 24 March 2006, on 19 June 2006 the Registry advised the applicant by registered mail that his failure to respond may lead the Court to the conclusion that he had lost interest in the case. The applicant was also informed that in such circumstances the Court may strike the case out of its list of cases.
As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 19 June 2006 reached the applicant on 5 July 2006.
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. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his 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 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