REVINA proti Rusku

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 32150/03
by Valentina REVINA
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9 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 19 September 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Valentina Mitrofanovna Revina, is a Russian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Sergiyev-Posad. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were 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.

On 21 March 2002 the Sergiev-Posad Town Court of the Moscow Region allowed the applicant’s claim against the Regional Department of the Pension Fund and Committee for Social Welfare. The applicant was awarded 42,217.79 Russian roubles (RUR) in arrears and RUR 2,500 in monthly payments. On 16 April 2002 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment.

Following the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment, the applicant applied to the court for an adjustment of the award.

On 15 January 2003 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUR 71,157.29 in arrears and RUR 2,500 in monthly payments.

On 29 July 2003 the Town Court additionally awarded the applicant RUR 90,655.23 in arrears and RUR 2,500 in monthly payments. The judgment came into effect on 11 August 2003.

COMPLAINT

Without referring to the Convention, the applicant complained about non-enforcement of the judgment of 21 March 2002 as adjusted on 15 January and 29 July 2003.

THE LAW

By letter of 12 January 2006 the Government informed the Court that the judgment at issue had been enforced and that, on 28 December 2005, the parties had reached a settlement.

By letter of 21 April 2006 the Court asked the applicant to comment on the Government’s observations concerning the friendly settlement of the case. By registered letter of 8 June 2006 the Court reiterated that request.

On 31 July 2006 a postal delivery card was received at the Court indicating that the registered letter of 8 June 2006 had reached the applicant on 23 July 2006.

The Court has received no comments from the applicant.

In the light of the above, the Court takes note of the fact that a settlement has been reached between the parties and considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court also finds that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply and the case should be struck out of the list.

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