FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 15892/02 by Sergey Ryurikovich DUSHECHKIN against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 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 27 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, Mr Sergey R y urikovich Dushechkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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 8 November 2000 the applicant, a retired military serviceman, sued his former employers, the Military Engineer Academy and the Ministry of the Defence, claiming free housing in Moscow .

By first instance judgment of 6 December 2000 the Military Court of the Moscow Garrison ordered the President of the Military Engineer Academy to provide the applicant and members of his family with housing in Moscow “in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the legislation and normative acts of the Russian Federation ”.

By decision of 13 February 2001 the Moscow Military District Court quashed the judgment of 6 December 2000 with reference to the procedural violations and remitted the case for a fresh examination at first instance.

On 19 March 2001 the Military Court of Moscow Garrison again decided in the applicant ’ s favour ordering the Ministry of Defence and the Military Engineer Academy jointly to provide the applicant with housing for permanent residence in Moscow , taking into account the family composition and in accordance with the applicable legislation.

This judgment was upheld on appeal by the Moscow Military District Court and came into force on 13 April 2001.

Thereafter the defendants applied for supervisory review of the judgment of 19 March 2001 and the decision of 13 April 2001.

On 14 June 2001 the President of the Moscow Military District Court refused their application as unsubstantiated.

Meanwhile, the applicant brought enforcement proceedings in connection with the decisions of 19 March and 13 April 2001.

On an unspecified date the Deputy President of the Supreme Court granted the application of the defendants and filed a special appeal against the decisions of 19 March and 13 April 2001 in the Moscow Military District Court.

On 17 October 2001 the Moscow Military District Court, in the presence of the applicant ’ s counsel and the prosecutor, examined the special appeal and granted it. It quashed the decisions of 19 March and 13 April 2001 with reference to the “incorrect application of the norms of substantive law” and took a new decision to reject the applicant ’ s claims.

COMPLAINTS

Under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 t he applicant complained about the decision of the Moscow Military District Court of 17 October 2001 by which he was unjustifiably deprived of an enforceable decision in his favour.

THE LAW

On 23 October 2006 the President of the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 ( c ) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 25 December 2006.

By letter of 9 January 2007 the applicant was requested to submit, by 6 March 2007, his comments on the Government ’ s observations.

In view of the absence of the applicant ’ s reply, by letter of 5 June 2007, sent by registered mail, the applicant ’ s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provided that the Court could strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances led to the conclusion that an applicant did not intend to pursue the application.

The Court notes that, despite the Court ’ s letters of 9 January 2007 and 5 June 2007 , the applicant has not submitted h is observations in reply to those of the Government . Nor has he made any other submissions to the Court.

Against this background, the Court considers that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the application. The Court finds no reasons concerning the respect for Human Rights warranting the further examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention 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 Loukis Loucaides Registrar President