FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 16606/02 by Oleg Nikolayevich LEONOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 November 2005 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mrs N. Vajić , Mrs S. Botoucharova , Mr A. Kovler , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr S.E. Jebens , judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 March 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case as well the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Oleg Nikolayevich Leonov , is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in the town of Belaya Kalitva , the Rostov Region . He is represented before the Court by M r A. V. Leonidchenko , a lawyer practising in Belaya Kalitva . The Russian Government (“the 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.

In the 1980s t he applicant took part in a rescue operation on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. As of an unspecified date the applicant has been in receipt of social benefits in this connection.

1. Court proceedings

On an unspecified date the applicant brought court proceedings against the social security authority ( Управление социальной защиты населения администрации г . Белая Калитва , “the authority”) for unpaid social benefits.

On 31 January 2000 the Belokalitvinskiy District Court of the Rostov Region granted the claim and ordered the authority to pay the applicant RUR 22,424.76 in respect of arrears for the period between 1 January and 31 December 1999 and to make him monthly payments of RUR 2,636.65 from 1 January 2000 till August 2002.

The parties did not appeal against the judgment and ten days later it came into force. The applicant ’ s attempts to obtain the sums due by way of enforcement proceedings were unsuccessful as the authorities refused to pay.

It appears that in April 2002 the authority eventually paid the applicant the sums due pursuant to the judgment of 31 January 2000 .

2. Events following communication

By a letter of 13 July 2004 the Government informed the Court that on 12 April 2004 the applicant had accepted to withdraw the application on the condition that he should be paid RUR 103,444.50 (~3,000 euros) in respect of the damage sustained. They also submitted a copy of the agreement to that effect and the District Court decision of 12 April 2004 validating the settlement.

By a letter dated 12 April 2004 the applicant confirmed that the case had been settled and requested the Court to strike his application out of its list accordingly.

On 3 January 2005 the Court received the applicant ’ s letter in which he confirmed the validity of the friendly settlement of 12 April 2004 but retracted his request of strike-out with reference to an unsatisfactory outcome of a fresh set of civil proceedings against the authority.

COMPLAINT

Under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 t he applicant complained about the prolonged non-enforcement of the final court judgment dated 31 January 2000 .

THE LAW

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. As regards the applicant ’ s request of 3 January 2005 , the Court notes that it refers essentially to a fresh sets of proceedings instituted by the applicant against the authority and has no bearing on the fact that the present case has been settled. This being so, the Court is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it sh ould be struck out of the list.

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