PROTASOVA proti Rusku

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 27793/03
by Galina Georgiyevna PROTASOVA
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 October 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

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

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 June 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 applicant, Ms Galina Georgiyevna Protasova, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Neryungri in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic. She was represented before the Court by Mr P. Andreytsev, a lawyer practising in Neryungri. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the 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 1 July 2003 the Neryungri Town Court granted the applicant’s civil action against the Ministry of Finance and awarded her 102,056 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 2,924 euros). The judgment was upheld on appeal on 11 August 2003.

It appears that the judgment of 1 July 2003, as upheld on appeal on 11 August 2003, remains unenforced to date.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained, without invoking any Convention provisions, about non-enforcement of the judgment of the Neryungri Town Court of 1 July 2003.

THE LAW

On 11 March 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 15 July 2005 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received.

On 19 July 2005 the Court asked the applicant to submit written observations in reply by 20 September 2005. The letter of 19 July 2005 was sent to the applicant’s representative.

On 5 September 2005 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant’s representative. 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 20 September 2005, on 28 November 2005 the applicant’s representative was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application. No response followed.

On 5 May 2006 the Court sent a letter to the applicant’s home address advising her about the consequences of her failure to submit observations. The Court’s letters of 11 March, 19 July, 5 September and 28 November 2005 were enclosed. 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 and her representative subsequently received reminders thereof. They were also informed about a consequence of the failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue her 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