[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Yuriy Borisovich STOLBEROV v Russia - 22755/04 [2008] ECHR 1869 (29 April 2008 ) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1869.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1869

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

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 2755/04
by Yuriy Borisovich STOLBEROV
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 November 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 Yuriy Borisovich Stolberov, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Yekaterinburg in the Sverdlovsk Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, 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 31 July 1997 the Verkh-Isetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg upheld a friendly-settlement agreement between the applicant and his employer, the Zabaykalskiy Military Command. Pursuant to the agreement, the employer was to pay the applicant a lump sum of 48,861.44 Russian roubles (RUB) and monthly payments of RUB 1,879.51 in compensation for health damage. Monthly payments were to be paid throughout the applicant’s life and were to be adjusted to increases of the minimum statutory wage. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.

In May 1999 the employer started paying monthly payments in the amount established by the judgment of 31 July 1997. According to the applicant, the payments were not paid on a regular basis and the employer stopped the payments in October 2001. Indexation of the awarded payments was never carried out.

In August 1999 the employer paid the applicant RUB 48,861.44.

On 17 October 2001 the Verkh-Isentskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg awarded the applicant RUB 72,203.89 which represented adjustment of the sums due to him under the friendly-settlement agreement. The judgment of 17 October 2001 was not appealed against and became final.

According to the Government, the judgment of 17 October 2001 was enforced in full on 13 October 2003.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the final judgments had not been enforced in good time.

THE LAW

On 21 May 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 10 September 2007 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 13 September 2007 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 15 November 2007.

As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 15 November 2007, on 22 January 2008 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 22 January 2008 reached the applicant on 30 January 2008. No response followed.

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 was requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his 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.

André Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President