FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 7364/04 by Vladislav Yevgenyevich LUKASHEVICH against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section), sitting on 20 February 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr L. Loucaides , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr A. Kovler , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr K. Hajiyev , Mr D. Spielmann, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 February 2004,

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 observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vladislav Yevgenyevich Lukashevich, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and lives in the Ryazan Region. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a former police officer.

In 2001 he took part in a counter-terrorist mission in the North-Caucasus Region of Russia.

On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant lodged a claim with a court against the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation to receive the wages for his participation in the mission.

On 2 December 2003 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan granted the applicant ’ s claim and awarded him 47,096 roubles, payable by the Ministry of the Interior.

On 15 December 2003 the judgment became final.

On the same date the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan issued a writ of execution and forwarded it to the State Treasury of Russia.

The judgment of 2 December 2003 was enforced on 20 September 2004.

B. Proceedings before the Court

On 1 March 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 23 June 2006 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application . By their letter of the same date the Government also informed the Court of the applicant ’ s wish to withdraw the application from the list of cases pending before the Court.

T he applicant was invited to submit written observations in reply by 28 August 2006 and confirm his wish to withdraw the application.

On 26 July 2006 the English version of the Government ’ s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of his observations in reply remained unaffected.

As the applicant ’ s observations in reply had not been received by 28 August 2006 , on 18 October 2006 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to clarify his position regarding the withdrawal of his application or, in the alternative, to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application.

The applicant received the letter on 25 October 2006 but did not reply thereto.

THE LAW

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 advised that he was to confirm his wish to withdraw the application from the list of cases or to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, it 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 (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 A rticle 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President