THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 40682/02 by Aleksandr Mikhaylovich PONOMAREV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section), sitting on 19 October 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr B.M. Zupančič , President , Mr J. Hedigan , Mr A. Kovler , Mrs A. Gyulumyan , Mr E. Myjer , Mrs I. Ziemele , Mrs I. Berro-Lefevre , judges

and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Ponomarev , is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Ryazan . The respondent Government are 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.

The applicant is a retired military officer.

On 12 February 2002 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison allowed the applicant ’ s claim against his former military unit no. 41450 and awarded him RUR 238, 962 (approximately EUR 6,827) in payment of subsistence allowance and RUR 1, 015 (approximately EUR 29) in payment of legal costs. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 26 February 2002.

On 11 March 2002 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison issued the writ of execution.

On an unspecified date the applicant sent the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance.

On 15 March 2002 the Ministry of Finance returned the writ of execution to the applicant and informed him that the judgment could not be enforced because of lack of funds.

By letter of 30 August 2005 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment of 12 February 2002 had been enforced on 5 August 2003 .

COMPLAINT S

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about delayed enforcement of the judgment of the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison of 12 February 2002.

THE LAW

On 2 November 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 27 March 2006 the Government ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were forwarded to the applicant who was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 29 May 2006 .

On 3 May 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 29 May 2006 , on 19 June 2006 the Registry advised the applicant by registered mail that his failure to respond may lead the Court to the conclusion that he had lost interest in the case. The applicant was also informed that in such circumstances the Court may strike the case out of its list of cases.

As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 19 June 2006 reached the applicant on 29 June 2006.

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. 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 strike the application out of its list of cases.

Vincent Berger Boštjan M. Zupančič Registrar President