FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 76522/01 by Pavel Platonovich GUSEV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mrs N. Vajić ,

Mr A. Kovler , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr K. Hajiyev , Mr D. Spielmann , Mr S.E. Jebens ,

and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 April 2001,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.

Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Pavel Platonovich Gusev , is a Russian national who was born in 1926 and lives in the town of Zernograd in the Rostov Region. He was represented before the Court by Mr N. Bychkov . 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.

1. Defamation proceedings against a newspaper

In 1990 a local newspaper published two articles, in which the applicant was portrayed as a Nazi collaborator.

The applicant sued the newspaper in defamation. By judgment of 14 February 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don rejected his claims. On 21 March 2001 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment.

The applicant brought further court proceedings against the same newspaper and the presumed author. On 24 May 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court declined jurisdiction in favour of another district court. On 4 July 2001 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment.

2. Other court proceedings

The applicant sued a Mrs B. who had made defamatory statements about the applicant ’ s activities in the 1940s. By judgment of 23 January 2001, the Zernograd Town Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant ’ s claim and awarded him 2,500 Russian roubles in non-pecuniary damages against Mrs B.

COMPLAINT S

The applicant complained , in substance, u nder Article 8 of the Convention about having been subjected to political repression in the 1940s and about the courts ’ failure to protect his good name and reputation. He also referred to Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

On 4 January 2006 the Court communicated the case to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court.

The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 5 April 2006. By letter of 10 April 2006, the Court requested the applicant to submit, by 2 June 2006, his comments on the Government ’ s observations.

As the applicant had not replied, by letter of 27 June 2006, sent by registered mail, the Court drew the applicant ’ s representative ’ s attention to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provides that the Court can strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that an applicant does not intend to pursue the application.

As there was no reply, and no acknowledgment that the Court ’ s letter had been delivered, on 23 February 2007 the Court sent a letter to the applicant, reiterating the strike-out warning. A copy of that letter was also sent to the applicant ’ s representative. It follows from the acknowledgment-of-receipt card that the representative had received the Court ’ s second letter on 14 March 2007.

The Court notes that on 11 January 2006 the applicant was informed that notice of the application had been given to the respondent Government. The Court also notes that, despite its letters of 27 June 2006 and 23 February 2007, the applicant has not submitted his comments on the Government ’ s observations.

With reference to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application and that the case should be struck out of its list. The Court finds no particular reasons concerning respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, which would require further examination of the present 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 should be struck out of the list.

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 Christos R ozakis Registrar President