TARANOV v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 14620/06 • ECHR ID: 001-85893
Document date: March 27, 2008
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14620/06 by Sergey TARANOV against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis , President, Anatoly Kovler , Elisabeth Steiner , Dean Spielmann , Sverre Erik Jebens , Giorgio Malinverni , George Nicolaou , judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 March 2006,
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 Sergey Georgiyevich Taranov, is a Russian national who was born in 1990 and lives in Yakutsk . He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Kononov , a lawyer practising in Yakutsk . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former 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.
By judgment of 9 October 2002, the Yakutsk Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic required the Town Council to provide the applicant, then a minor, with housing. The parties did not appeal and the judgment became final.
On 6 September 2006 the applicant, being represented by Ms T. Sharamayeva, and the Council concluded a settlement by which the latter was to pay the applicant 1,250,000 Russian roubles (RUB) instead of providing the housing.
On 22 September 2006 the Town Court approved that settlement.
The Government provided a copy of the payment order confirming that Ms Sharamayeva, the applicant ’ s legal representative, had received the money on 9 November 2006.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 9 October 2002.
THE LAW
On 9 October 2006 the Government submitted their observations and informed the Court that the parties had concluded a settlement by which the applicant was to be paid RUB 1,250,000 instead of receiving a flat.
By letter dated 18 October 2006 the Government ’ s observations were sent to Mr V. Kononov, the applicant ’ s representative before the Court , who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 13 December 2006.
On 29 January 2007 the Government submitted the payment order certifying that the money under the settlement had been paid to Ms T. Sharamayeva, the applicant ’ s legal representative.
By letter of 7 February 2007 Mr Kononov was invited to comment on the information submitted by the Government by 21 March 2007.
By letter dated 11 April 2007 , sent by registered post, the applicant ’ s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant ’ s observations and comments had expired on 13 December 2006 and 21 March 2007, respectively, and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ’ s representative ’ 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. The applicant ’ s representative received this letter on 4 May 2007 . However, no response has been received.
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.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
