FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 40226/02 by Sergey Viktorovich SOROKIN against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr P. Lorenzen , President , Mrs S. Botoucharova , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska , Mr A. Kovler , Mr J. Borrego Borrego , Mr M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs Françoise E lens -P assos , Deputy Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 October 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 Viktorovich Sorokin, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in St Petersburg . 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.

In 1999 the applicant, an army officer, was dismissed from military service due to a structural reorganisation of his military unit. During his service in the army he became eligible for social housing and was placed on a waiting list. In 2001 he sued the military unit, seeking to obtain social accommodation by the State. He invoked his statutory entitlement to receive a flat immediately, out of order. On 5 November 2001 the Leningrad Circuit Military Court granted his claim and held that the Ministry of Defence was to provide the applicant ’ s family with a flat in accordance with applicable housing standards. The judgment expressly stated that the accommodation should be granted out of the order established by the waiting list. Enforcement proceedings against the military unit were initiated. On 7 May 2002 the housing commission of the military unit provided the applicant with a two-room flat situated in St Petersburg , measuring 59 square meters. However, until the end of 2005 the military unit refused to conclude with the applicant a tenancy contract concerning that flat, and to make other necessary administrative arrangements. As a result, the applicant was unable to live in that flat. It appears that on an unspecified date all administrative matters were settled and the applicant moved in the flat at issue.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.

THE LAW

On 19 March 2007 the applicant informed the Court that the Russian Federation had enforced the judgment of 5 November 2001 in full, and that he had been provided with the housing. He informed the Court that he wished to withdraw his application. The Government, in their letter of 8 May 2007, supported that request.

The Court notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 of the Convention, which, in so far as material, reads:

“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 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 the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and that the case 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 strike the application out of its list of cases.

Françoise Elens-Passos Peer Lorenzen Deputy Registrar President