FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 30992/05 by Mikhail KIRIKOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section), sitting on 6 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 14 July 2005 ,

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 Maksimovich Kirikov , is a Russian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Chelyabinsk . 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 2 September 2004 the Tsentralnyi District Court of Chelyabinsk granted the applicant ’ s claim against the Chelyabinsk Police Department and awarded him 44,596.90 Russian roubles (RUB). A representative of the Police Department did not attend the hearing and asked to examine the matter in his absence.

No ordinary appeal was lodged against the judgment and it became enforceable ten days later.

On an unspecified date, the Police Department introduced an application for supervisory review.

On 26 January 2005 the Presidium of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court quashed, by way of supervisory review, the judgment of 2 September 2004. It dismissed the applicant ’ s claim in full and held that he should reimburse RUB 723.95 to the Police Department which it had paid as the court fee for the supervisory-review application.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the Russian courts disregarded the requirements of the domestic law and did not give due weight to his arguments.

The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that his right to a court was violated.

The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the State has been unlawfully withholding his food allowance.

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 25 July 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 26 September 2007 . No response was received from the applicant.

By letter of 6 November 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. This letter was returned to the Court as unclaimed.

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. Moreover, it 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