FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 22442/05 by Tamara SMIRNOVA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section), sitting on 6 March 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 11 April 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, M r s Tamara Aleksandrovna Smirnova, is a Russian national who was born in 1947 and lives in the Deputatskiy village in the Yakutiya (Sakha) Republic . 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 brought a civil action against the Government, seeking to recover the monetary value of a State promissory note for purchase of a Russian-made car.

On 1 April 2003 the Ust-Yanskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic found for the applicant and awarded her 138,967 Russian roubles (“RUB”).

On 30 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (hereinafter – “the Supreme Court”) rejected an appeal by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the judgment.

In June 2004 the Ministry of Finance introduced an application for supervisory review before the Presidium of the Supreme Court.

On 14 October 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 1 April 2003, as upheld on 30 April 2003, and dismissed the applicant ’ s claim in full. In so deciding, the Presidium noted that the courts had failed to take into account the provisions of the 2001 State Programme for Redemption of Promissory Notes which had extended the period of redemption until 31 December 2004. In the Presidium ’ s assessment, that failure amounted to a substantial violation of the material law warranting re-consideration of the case.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention that, by quashing the judgments in her favour, the State refused to fulfil its obligations arising out of the promissory note .

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 her observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. Her 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 5 December 2007 but never replied.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be considered as no longer wishing to pursue her 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