FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 22051/02 by Oksana Borisovna OBORINA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section), sitting on 23 October 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 S. Nielsen , Section Registrar

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 March 2002,

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 Oksana Borisovna Oborina , is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Perm . She was represented before the Court by Mr S. Yeremenko , a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg . 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 19 June 2001 the Verkh-Isetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg upheld the applicant ’ s action against the Yekaterinburg Town Customs Office and awarded her 760,936.86 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for damage and RUB 10,895.41 in legal costs. The judgement became final on 6 September 2001. It was fully enforced on 17 November 2004.

On 6 November 2003 and 16 August 2004 the District Court increased the awards made under the judgment of 19 June 2001 to take account of inflation and awarded the applicant RUB 213,904.79 and RUB 4,017.78, respectively. The Government submitted that they had not been notified of the enforcement of the judgments of 6 November 2003 and 16 August 2004.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Articles 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment s of the Verkh-Isetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg made in her favour .

THE LAW

On 2 May 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 23 August 2005 the Government ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 1 October 2005 the Court received the applicant ’ s observations in reply. On 13 December 2005 the Government submitted their comments on the applicant ’ s claims for just satisfaction.

On 28 August 2006 the Court invited the Government to submit additional written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant ’ s complaint.

On 20 December 2006 the Government ’ s additional observations were received. On 2 January 2007 the Court invited the applicant to submit her written observations in reply by 6 March 2007 .

As the applicant ’ s additional observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 6 March 2007 , on 8 June 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit her additional 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 8 June 2007 reached the applicant ’ s representative on 28 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 additional written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. She subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of her failure to submit the additional observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue her 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 reasons, 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.

Søren Nielsen L oukis L o ukaides Registrar President