FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 4149/03 by Larisa Ivanovna VAKULENKO against Russia

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

Mrs S. Botoucharova , President , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr V. Butkevych , Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska , Mr A. Kovler , Mrs R. Jaeger , Mr M. Villiger , judges , and Ms C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 December 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, Mrs Larisa Ivanovna Vakulenko , is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in the town of Zernograd , the Rostov Region . 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 applicant is in receipt of welfare payments for her children. In 2001 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.

On 4 July 2001 the Zernograd District Court of the Rostov Region awarded the applicant 1,803.94 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 60 euros) against the welfare authority. This judgment entered into force on 16 July 2001.

On the latter date the writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.

On 10, 17 and 23 August 2001 the applicant received RUR 985.78, RUR 525.96 and RUR 175.32 respectively.

The remaining RUR 116.88 were paid to the applicant on 25 November 2003.

On 14 May 2007 the applicant accepted to withdraw the application on the condition that she should be paid RUR 10,000 (approximately 300 euros) in respect of the damage sustained. This agreement was subsequently validated by the District Court.

The applicant and the Government confirmed this set tlement to the Court by letters of 29 May and 18 June 2007, respectively .

COMPLAINTS

Under Articles 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of judgment in her favour.

THE LAW

The Court takes note of the friendly settlem ent reached between the parties and is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examinatio n of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it sh ould be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Claudia Westerdiek Snejana Botoucharova Registrar President