FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 5592/06 by Tatyana Vasilyevna FEDOTOVA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President, Mr L. Loucaides , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr A. Kovler , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr K. Hajiyev , Mr G. Malinverni , judges,

And Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 January 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 Tatyana Vasilyevna Fedotova, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Yaroslavl . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Representative , Mrs V. Milinchuk .

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

In 1976-2003 the applicant was working in the Far North of Russia which gave her entitlement to preferential conditions of retirement.

In 2003 the applicant sued the Monchegorskiy branch of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (the Pension Fund) alleging its failure to take account of her preferential entitlement when calculating her retirement pension.

On 19 June 2003 the Monchegorskiy Town Court of the Murmansk Region granted the applicant ’ s claim and ordered the Pension Fund to recalculate the applicant ’ s pension for the period from 1 January 2002 taking account of her preferential entitlement and to pay her the arrears.

On 5 November 2003 the Murmansk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 19 June 2003. On the same day the writ of execution was issued to the applicant.

On 9 December 2003 the bailiff service instituted the enforcement proceedings. However, following the applicant ’ s request, on 4 February 2004 they were terminated.

C OMPLAINTS

The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour claiming that it infringed her right to a preferential pension, her right to a fair trial and a right to effective remedy against the unlawful failure on the part of the Pension Fund to pay her full pension .

THE LAW

On 2 May 2007 the President of the Chamber decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. On 27 July 2007 the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits. The Government explained that the enforcement of the judgment of 19 June 2003 as upheld on appeal on 5 November 2003 would have resulted in reduction of the amount of the applicant ’ s pension, which circumstance led the applicant to revoke her warrant of execution from the bailiff service on 4 February 2004. By a letter dated 9 August 2007 the Government ’ s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations in reply. By a letter dated 23 August 2007 the applicant informed the Registry that she wanted to withdraw her application.

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