[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Sergey Ivanovich KOLESNIKOV v Russia - 35034/03 [2008] ECHR 1810 (4 December 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1810.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1810

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 35034/03
by Sergey Ivanovich KOLESNIKOV
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 August 2003,

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 Sergey Ivanovich Kolesnikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Bataysk, the Rostov Region. The respondent Government were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev and subsequently by Ms V. Milinchuk, both the former Representatives 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 22 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant's claim against the Welfare Office of Bataysk for recalculation and increase of his disability allowance. On 16 April 2003 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal, and it entered into force.

On 4 December 2003 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment by way of the supervisory review proceedings and remitted the case for a new examination.

On 25 December 2003 the Bataysk Town Court granted the applicant's claims in part. On 28 January 2004 the judgment was enforced.

At some point the applicant brought further proceedings for re-adjustment of his pension. By judgments of 22 April 2004, 12 September 2005, 14 December 2005 and 26 December 2006 the Bataysk Town Court granted his claims. It appears that the latter judgment was enforced on 1 March 2007.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of 22 January 2003 in his favour and about the quashing of the judgments of 22 January 2003 and 16 April 2003 by way of supervisory review. He further complained under Article 6 that the domestic courts misinterpreted the domestic law applicable to his case.

THE LAW

On 28 November 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

By letter dated 28 February 2007 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction by 25 April 2007. No reply followed.

By letter dated 4 December 2007 the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant's observations had expired on 25 April 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant was asked to provide a reply by 8 January 2008 at latest.

The applicant did not reply.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application (cf. Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President