THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 43172/98 by Vladislav Boris TIKHOMIROV and Mariya TIKHOMIROVA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) , sitting on 21 March 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Mr G. Ress , President , Mr I. Cabral Barreto , Mr P. Kūris , Mr B. Zupančič , Mr J. Hedigan , Mrs M. Tsatsa - Nikolovska , Mr A. Kovler , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 7 July 1997 and registered on 28 August 1998,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS AND COMPLAINTS

The first applicant was a Russian national, born in 1930. He died on 31 December 1999. The second applicant is his widow, living in Moscow.

The first applicant, a former civil servant at the United Nations Organisation (“UN”), was involved with the Russian Ministry of Finance in a dispute concerning his payments under the UN pension scheme. On 24 August 1999 the Moscow City Basmannyy District Court found that the Russian finance authorities must pay the first applicant for his UN pension contributions, awarding him 74,632 United States dollars (USD) in this respect. On 26 October 1999 the Moscow City Court rejected the finance authorities’ appeal against the first instance judgment.

The first applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he was unable to obtain execution of the judgment of 24 August 1999.

Following the first applicant’s death on 31 December 1999, the execution procedure in Russia was suspended, subject to the determination of his heirs in connection with the above proceedings.

By a letter of 5 May 2000 the second applicant expressed her wish to take over the first applicant’s rights and obligations in regard to the above application.

According to the relevant statutory provisions, on 1 July 2000 the second applicant inherited the first applicant’s claim in connection with the judgment of 24 August 1999. The second applicant alleged however that she was also unable to obtain execution of the judgment, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

On 29 August 2000 the Court communicated the case to the respondent Government.

On 16 January 2001 the Government submitted their observations as to the admissibility and merits of the case whereby they claimed that the judgment of 24 August 1999 had in fact been executed in that on 1 October 2000 the second applicant had been paid by the bailiffs 2,069,545.36 RUR, equivalent at the material time to 74,632 USD. The Government presented documented account of their submissions.

By the Court’s letter of 17 January 2001 the Government’s observations were sent to the second applicant. She was requested to submit, before 14 March 2001, her comments regarding the observations. She did not submit any reply by that date. By the Court’s letter of 1 December 2001 the second applicant was reminded that she had submitted no comments regarding the Government’s observations. No further reply was received from the second applicant.

THE LAW

The Court notes the fact of the first applicant’s death and the wish of his widow, the second applicant, to take over his rights and obligations in this case. Given that the subject of the present application is the alleged non-execution of the court judgment of 24 August 1999, and in view of the fact that the second applicant has inherited the first applicant’s claim in regard to this judgment, the Court considers that the second applicant is justified in pursuing the case initiated by the first applicant, in his stead and on her own behalf.

The Court notes the Government’s submission that the judgment of 24 August 1999 was executed on 1 October 2000 by way of payment to the second applicant of the amount ordered in favour of the first applicant in the decision. It is further noted that the second applicant has made no comments regarding these observations, and that she has made no submissions to the Court since the communication of the case on 29 August 2000.

Against this background, the Court observes that the matter has been resolved and that the second applicant has lost interest in pursuing the application. The Court finds no reason to continue the examination of the case. By reference to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that the application should be struck out of its list of cases.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Vincent Berger Georg Ress Registrar President