FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 901/04 by Aleksandr Anatolyevich CHERNOV 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 , Dean Spielmann , Sverre Erik Jebens , judges,

and Søren 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Anatolyevich Chernov , is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Kameshkovo in the Vladimir Region . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk , 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.

A. Proceedings concerning compensation for health damage

On 16 February 2000 the Kameshkovo District Court upheld the applicant ’ s action against the Kameshkovo District Department of Social Services and awarded him a lump sum of 20,370.68 Russian roubles (RUB) and monthly payments of RUB 1,525 in compensation for health damage. On 23 June 2000 the Presidium of the Vladimir Regional Court , by way of a supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 16 February 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.

By the final judgment of 23 November 2000 the Vladimir Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s action in full. That judgment was quashed on a supervisory review and the case was remitted for a fresh examination.

On 20 June 2003 the Kameshkovo District Court partly upheld the applicant ’ s action, awarding him a lump sum of RUB 31,181.99 in compensation for health damage. The judgment became final and enforceable on 14 August 2003 when the Vladimir Regional Court upheld it on appeal.

According to the Government, on 27 August 2004 the judgment award was paid to the applicant in full.

B. Proceedings for indexation of monthly pension payments

On 15 June 2004 the Kameshkovo District Court upheld the applicant ’ s action against the Kameshkovo Town Council and awarded him a lump sum of RUB 64,522 in indexation of monthly pension payments, RUB 5,854.80 in monthly pension payments starting from 1 June 2004, a lump sum of RUB 7,742.66 in indexation for unpaid social benefits, RUB 702.58 in monthly social payments starting from 1 June 2004, a lump sum of RUB 795.80 in indexation of the compensation for health damage, and a lump sum of RUB 1,170.96 in compensation for health damage.

The judgment was not appealed against and became final. According to the Government, it was enforced in full on 3 November 2006.

C. Proceedings for indexation of the judgment award of 20 June 2003

On 10 December 2004 the Kameshkovo District Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,989.12 in indexation of the judgment award made on 20 June 2003 in his favour. The decision of 10 December 2004 was not appealed against and became final. It was enforced on 9 November 2005.

COMPLAINTS

Invoking Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, t he applicant complained that the final judgments made in his favour had not been enforced in good time, that the judgment of 16 February 2000 had been quashed by way of a supervisory review, and that the domestic courts had incorrectly applied the domestic law and assessed the facts .

THE LAW

On 23 May 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 11 September 2007 the Government ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 13 September 2007 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 15 November 2007 .

On 12 October 2007 the Eng lish version of the Government ’ s observations was forwarded to the applicant . The time-limit for t he submission of the applicant ’ s observations remained unaffected.

As the applicant ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 15 November 2007 , on 22 January 2008 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. No response followed.

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