FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 11513/03 by Eduard SEMIKOLENOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section), sitting on 6 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis , President, Nina Vajić , Anatoly Kovler , Elisabeth Steiner , Khanlar Hajiyev , Giorgio Malinverni , George Nicolaou , judges, and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 March 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, Mr Eduard Ivanovich Semikolenov , is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Rostov-on-Don . The respondent Government are represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk , 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.

The applicant is a retired military serviceman.

On 16 August 2002 the Military Court of the Rostov-on-Don Garrison awarded the applicant 6,990.77 Russian roubles, payable by the head of military unit no. 65222. According to the Government, the judgment debt was paid to the applicant on 24 December 2003.

On 11 May 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the head of military unit no. 65222 for salary arrears. On 29 April 2002 the Military Court of the Rostov-on-Don Garrison partly granted the applicant ’ s claim. On 11 September 2002 the Military Court of the North Caucasus Command quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for re-examination by the first-instance court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 16 August 2002 in his favour, about an excessive length of civil proceedings, and the unfavourable outcome. He also invoked Article 13 in this respect.

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.”

The Court observes that, b y letter of 13 September 2007, the Government ’ s observations were forwarded to the applicant who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 15 November 2007 . No response was received from the applicant.

By letter of 19 December 2007 sent by registered mail , the applicant was advised that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court would strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received the letter on 9 January 2008 but never replied.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be considered as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court further considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of his complaints ( Article 37 § 1 in fine ). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to s trike the case out of the list of cases.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the applic ation out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President