SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 58826/00 by Valeriy Vasilyevich BOCHKOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section) , sitting on 10 February 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr V. Butkevych , Mrs W. Thomassen , Mr A. Kovler , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze , judges ,

and S. Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 January 2000,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the letter submitted by the applicant’s widow requesting that the application be withdrawn,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS AND COMPLAINTS

The applicant, Mr Valeriy Vasilyevich Bochkov , was a Russian national, born in 1949. He died on 6 June 2000 in the course of the proceedings before the Court. On 20 June 2000 the applicant’s son, Mr Andrey Valeryevich Bochkov , and on 5 February 2001 the applicant’s widow, Mrs Nina Petrovna Palamarchuk , informed the Court of their wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court.

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

The applicant took part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant catastrophe.

On 2 April 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of the Belgorod Region ( Октябрьский районный суд Белгородской области ) allowed in part the applicant’s claims for damages as a result of his participation, and ordered the Social Security Department ( Управление социальной защиты населения ) to pay him 26,946.78 Russian roubles (equivalent to about 1,030 euros at the material time). No appeal was made and this judgment entered into force.

In August 1999 the applicant was informed both by the Bailiffs’ office and the Social Security Department that no budgetary funds were available to execute the judgment.

In April 2000 the Bailiffs’ office closed the enforcement proceedings on the grounds that the Social Security Department lacked the necessary funds for the execution of the judgment.

The applicant complained about the non-execution of the judgment in his favour and invoked Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

On 29 August 2003 the case was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 1 December 2003 the Government submitted their observations. The Government claimed that the matter had been resolved on the domestic level. In support of their claim, the Government submitted that on 27 October 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of the Belgorod Region recognised the applicant’s widow as his legal successor for the purposes of his claim against the Social Security Department. Following this, on 19 November 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court approved a friendly settlement between the applicant’s widow and the Social Security Department. According to the friendly settlement, the Social Security Department agreed to pay the sum awarded by the court judgment of 2 April 1999 plus compensation for delayed execution in the amount of 65,700 Russian roubles (equivalent to 1,875 euros at the material time). In return, the applicant’s widow agreed to withdraw the application lodged with the Court by her late husband.

On 15 December 2003 the Government submitted proof that the above-mentioned amounts had been transferred to the applicant’s widow’s bank account.

On 7 January 2004 the applicant’s widow informed the Court in writing that she did not wish to pursue further the case and wished to withdraw the application as the matter had been resolved.

THE LAW

The Court notes that the applicant died in the course of the proceedings before the Court and that his widow notified the Court about her intention to pursue his application. In this respect, the Court recalls that when an applicant dies in the course of the proceedings, the applicant’s heirs or close members of his family may in principle claim in their turn to be “victims” of the alleged violation, as rightful successors and, in certain circumstances, on their own behalf (see Deweer v. Belgium , judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, pp.19-20, §§ 37-38). The Court further notes that on 27 October 2003 the applicant’s widow was formally recognised as his legal successor for the purposes of his claim against the Social Security Department. The Court, therefore, considers that the applicant’s widow is justified in pursuing the case initiated by her late husband.

The Court notes that on 19 November 2003 a friendly settlement was reached between the applicant’s widow and the Social Security Department pursuant to which the latter paid to the applicant’s widow the sum awarded by the court judgment of 2 April 1999 plus compensation for delayed execution. The Court further notes that the applicant’s widow wishes to withdraw the application lodged by her late husband and that it would appear that the applicant’s son has not raised any objection to this.

Against this background, the Court observes that the matter has been resolved. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). The Court considers therefore that the application should be struck out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa Registrar President