FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 13661/04 by Valeriy Mikhaylovich SOLOMATIN against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section), sitting on 8 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr L. Loucaides , President , Mr A. Kovler , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr K. Hajiyev , Mr D. Spielmann , Mr S.E. Jebens , Mr G. Malinverni, judges , and Mr A. Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 February 2004,

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 Valeriy Mikhaylovich Solomatin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Oryol . He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Suchkov , a lawyer practising in Oryol. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the 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.

On 23 September 2003 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court upheld the applicant ’ s action against the Ministry of Finance and awarded him 3,000 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately 87 euros) in compensation for his unlawful detention from 15 to 17 January 2001. On 22 October 2003 the judgment became final and binding. It appears that it remains unenforced.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention about insufficient compensation for his detention and the failure to enforce the judgment of 23 September 2003.

THE LAW

On 14 November 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 6 February 2007 the Government ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 20 February 2007 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 24 April 2007 .

On 6 March 2007 the Eng lish version of the Government ’ s observations was forwarded to the applicant . The time-limit for t he submission of the applicant ’ s observations remained unaffected.

As the applicant ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 24 April 2007 , on 28 June 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 28 June 2007 reached the applicant on 31 July 2007. No response followed.

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 notes that the applicant was requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.

In these circumstances it considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

For these re asons, the Court unanimously

Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.

André Wampach Loukis Loucaides              Deputy Registrar President