FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 20583/03 by Oleg Stanislavovich KUZMIN against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 June 2007, as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President, Mr L. Loucaides , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr A. Kovler , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr S.E. Jebens , Mr G. Malinverni , judges, and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 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, Mr Oleg Stanislavovich Kuzmin , is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in the town of Mirniy in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic . He was represented before the Court by Ms I. Reytenba kh , a lawyer practising in Mirni y . Th e Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev , the 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 28 October 2002 the Mirniy Town Court upheld the applicant ’ s action against the Ministry of Finance and awarded him 138,967 Russian roubles in compensation for a special-purpose settlement order by the terms of which the Government was to provide him with a car . On 2 December 2002 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment.

Enforcement proceedings were instituted but the judgment was not enforced.

On 12 August 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, by way of a supervisory review, quashed the judgments of 28 October and 2 December 2002 and dismissed the applicant ’ s action.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that the judgment of the Mirniy Town Court of 28 October 2002 had not been enforced.

THE LAW

On 4 April 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 19 July 2006 the Government ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On the following day the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 21 September 2006 .

On 19 September 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.

On 3 October 2006 the Court forwarded to the applicant the Government ’ s letter of 21 September 2006 concerning their position on the question of a friendly settlement in the case.

As the applicant ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 21 September 2006 , on 31 January 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. No response followed.

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. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his 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 these circumstances it considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President