FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 34750/04 by Anzhella Aleksandrovna SHAROMOVA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 May 2006 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 , judges, and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 August 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 deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Anzhella Aleksandrovna Sharomova, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Novosibirsk . The 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 23 March 2000 the Kalininskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region partially allowed the applicant ’ s claim against the Finance and Tax Department of the Novosibirsk Region and awarded her 4,489.44 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 166 euros). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 6 April 2000 .

On 6 April 2000 a writ of execution was issued.

On 31 October 2002 the applicant received RUR 174.22.

On 31 March 2003 the applicant received RUR 507.02 and on the same day the bailiffs ’ service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor had no available funds.

On 12 April 2004 the applicant resubmitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs ’ service.

On 27 April 2005 the judgment was enforced in full.

On an unspecified date the applicant signed a settlement agreement with the Department of labour and social development of the Novosibirsk Region ( Департамент труда и социального развития Новосибирской области ) and on 15 July 2005 the applicant received RUR 7,000 (EUR 202) as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of the Kalininskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region of 23 March 2000 .

THE LAW

On 21 July 2005 the Court received from the Government a copy of a declaration signed by the applicant and another person. The relevant part of the declaration, as translated from Russian, read as follows:

“At the present moment, the “Department of labour and social development of the Novosibirsk Region”, on behalf of the Government, offered us to settle friendly the situation at hand, and paid us 7,000 (seven thousands) roubles as compensation.

We, Ms Sharomova A.A., application no. 34750/04, and [the other person]... agree to settle this issue and request to withdraw our applications from the European Court of Human Rights”.

The Government ’ s letter of 21 July 2005 also enclosed copies of financial documents showing that the specified amount had been transferred to the applicant ’ s account. The Government insisted that the applicant did not intend to pursue her application before the Court.

On 22 July 2005 the applicant was invited to submit her comments on the Government ’ s letter. No response followed. On 26 January 2006 the Court repeated its request, sent by registered mail. 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 signed the declaration by which she had requested the Court not to examine her application. The applicant was invited to submit her comments. No reply has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that following the enforcement of the judgment and payment of compensation the applicant does not intend to pursue her 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