FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 30698/03 by Mikhail NAZARENKO against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 1 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis , President, Nina Vajić , Anatoly Kovler , Elisabeth Steiner , Khanlar Hajiyev , Dean Spielmann ,

Giorgio Malinverni , judges,

and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 August 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 Mikhail Vasilyevich Nazarenko , is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and lives in the town of Bataysk in the Rostov Region . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mrs V. Milinchuk .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant brought proceedings against the Social Security Committee of Bataysk for a re-assessment of his allowances and payment of the arrears.

By judgment of 22 January 2003, the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region awarded the applicant 4,800 Russian roubles (RUB) in arrears for monthly payments due from 1 January 2002 to 1 January 2003, and RUB 576 in respect of a monthly commodity allowance. On 13 November 2003 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed that judgment by way of supervisory review and remitted the case to the Town Court .

By judgment of 25 December 2003, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 34,500 and increased his monthly allowance to RUB 3,937.50.

On 14 May 2004 the Town Court awarded him RUB 1,890 and increased his monthly allowance to RUB 4,567 as of 1 April 2004.

By judgment of 30 June 2005, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 2,192.40.

On 16 March 2007 the Town Court approved a settlement agreement by which the Social Security Committee had undertaken to pay the applicant a sum equivalent to 1,500 euros as compensation in respect of the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 22 January 2003.

COMPLAINTS

1 . The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the delays in the enforcement of the judgments of 22 January, 25 December 2003, 14 May 2004 and 30 June 2005.

2. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the quashing of the judgment of 22 January 2003 by way of supervisory review.

3. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts had misapplied the applicable legislation.

THE LAW

The Government did not submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application within the time-limit set by the Court.

By letter dated 19 April 2007, the applicant was, however, invited to submit, by 31 May 2007, any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction , he wished to make.

On 16 May 2007 the Government informed the Court that the applicant and the local authorities had reached a settlement. Under the terms of the agreement dated 16 March 2007, submitted by the Government, the Social Security Committee of Bataysk undertook to pay the applicant a sum equivalent to 1,500 euros as compensation in respect of the damage caused by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 22 January 2003. The Government enclosed a copy of the judgment of 16 March 2007 by which the Town Court had approved the above-mentioned settlement.

On 31 May 2007 a copy of the Government ’ s letter of 16 May 2007 and the settlement agreement were sent to the applicant. He was asked to indicate whether he intended to pursue the application.

The applicant did not submit any observations, as requested in the Court ’ s letter of 19 April 2007, and did not reply to the Court ’ s letter of 31 May 2007.

By letter dated 21 September 2007 , sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 31 May 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ’ s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may 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. It appears that t he applicant received this letter on 3 October 2007. However, no response has been received.

The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:

“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

...

(b) the matter has been resolved;

...

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 considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

André Wampach Christos Rozakis              Deputy Registrar President