FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 9036/07 by Tamara PETROVA and Others against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 31 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis , President, Loukis Loucaides , Nina Vajić , Anatoli Kovler , Khanlar Hajiyev , Dean Spielmann , Sverre Erik Jebens , judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 April 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 s named below, as well as the applicant Mrs Natalya Vladimirovna Begunova, are Russian national s. They live in Velikie Luki . The Government were represented before the Court 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 applicants are teachers at municipal kindergarten no. 2 in Velikie Luki. By virtue of section 55 § 8 of the Education Act, they were entitled to a monthly allowance for purchase of books and magazines ( компенсация за книгоиздательскую продукцию и периодические издания ) which had not been paid to them from 1996 to 1999.

The applicants applied to a court seeking recovery of the unpaid allowance and compensation for the damage sustained because of the delay in paying the allowance.

On 30 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 34 of Velikie Luki in the Pskov Region granted the applicants ’ claim for the unpaid allowance and held that the Education Directorate of the Velikie Luki Town Council should reimburse them the following amounts:

The Justice of the Peace dismissed the applicants ’ claim for compensation for delayed payments.

Mrs Begunova ’ s name was not listed in the judgment.

On 21 July 2003 the Velikie Luki Town Court of the Pskov Region upheld that judgment on appeal.

By identically worded individual letters of 5 June 2007, all the applicants, except Mrs Murzina, informed the Court that the judgment had been enforced in April 2004 and that they did not intend to pursue their application before the Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant s complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment in their favour.

The applicants complained under the same provisions that the domestic courts wrongly dismissed their claim for compensation.

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.”

As regards the situation of all the applicants except Mrs Murzina, it follows from their letters of 5 June 2007 that they do not intend to pursue their application.

As regards Mrs Murzina, the Court recalls that b y letter of 16 August 2007 sent by registered mail, the Government ’ s observations were forwarded to her with a request to submit any observations and claims for just satisfaction in reply by 26 September 2007. Mrs Murzina received this letter on 29 August 2007 but did not reply .

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, all the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court further notes that the judgment in their favour has already been enforced. It therefore considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of their complaints. 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 application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President