FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31238/06 by Svetlana Aleksandrovna STUROVA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President, Mr A. Kovler , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr K. Hajiyev , Mr D. Spielmann , Mr S.E. Jebens , Mr G. Malinverni , judges, and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 July 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, Ms Svetlana Aleksandrovna Sturova, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Lipetsk . 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 their Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk .

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

On 7 December 1988 a magnitude 6.9 earthquake shook northwestern Armenia .

From 1989 to 1991 the applicant worked in the area hit by the earthquake and its aftershocks.

In order to encourage the rescue groups to work in the area the Government undertook an obligation to sell to those involved Russian-made cars on advantageous conditions. However, the Government failed to comply with the above obligation.

The applicant brought proceedings against the Russian Government.

On 20 March 1995 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk obliged the Government and Russia ’ s largest car manufacturer “Lada” (“the manufacturer”) to sell the applicant a VAZ car for the price of 17,000 Russian roubles. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.

On 21 August 1995 the District Court on the bailiff ’ s request clarified the judgment and obliged the Government to pay the manufacturer the difference between the price for the car to be paid by the applicant and its actual cost.

On 13 February 1996, 5 August 1999, 16 August 2000, 9 October 2000, 3 August 2001 and 29 July 2003 the District Court adjusted the sum to be paid by the Government to the manufacturer in line with inflation.

In June 2007 the judgment of 20 March 1995 was enforced.

In November 2007 the Government reached an agreement with the applicant in order to settle the case and terminate the proceedings before the Court. The Government undertook to pay to the applicant 2,500 euros. This sum was to be paid within three months after the notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.

The applicant declared that, subject to the fulfilment of this obligation, she would not have any claims against the Russian Federation based on the facts of the application filed by her with the Court.

The parties agreed that the above settlement could in no way be interpreted as a recognition on behalf of the authorities of a violation of any of the provisions of the Convention and Protocols thereto.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complain ed that the non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour violated her “right to a court” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and her right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions provided in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

THE LAW

By letter dated 6 November 2007 the Government informed the Court that they had reached an agreement with the applicant to settle the case. In view of the above agreement, the Government requested the Court to strike the case out of the list of cases.

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 takes note of the fact that the applicant reached an agreement with the authorities and that, therefore, she no longer wants to pursue her application. Furthermore, the Court finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above-mentioned, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, th e Court unanimously

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

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President