FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 21089/03 by Oksana Akhurbekovna DZIDZOYEVA 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 R. Maruste , Mr A. Kovler , Mr M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 May 2003 ,

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 Akhurbekovna Dzidzoyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Vladikavkaz . 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 facts of the case, as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows.

On 18 December 2001 the Justice of Peace of the 18 th Court Circuit of the Iristonskiy Municipal District of Vladikavkaz granted the applicant ’ s claim against the military unit where she was employed as a civilian in the affiliated kindergarten. The applicant was awarded 25,294.35 Russian roubles (approximately 730 euros) in salary arrears. The parties did not appeal and the judgment became final on 28 December 2001.

On 28 September 2005 the judgment was enforced in full.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained about the continued non-enforcement of the judgment of 18 December 2001.

THE LAW

On 21 June 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 15 September 2006 the Government ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. The Government informed the Court that on 28 September 2005 the judgment of 18 December 2001 had been enforced in full. The Government provided the Court with copies of financial documents showing that the specified amount had been transferred to the applicant ’ s bank account.

The Court asked the applicant to submit her written observations by 2 November 2006 .

On 17 October 2006 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 2 November 2006 , on 23 April 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application. On 25 May 2007 the Court received the advice of receipt showing that its letter of 23 April 2007 had reached the applicant. The applicant did not reply.

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. She subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of her failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefore 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 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 in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Claudia Westerdiek Snejana Botoucharova Registrar President