CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 novembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sB06CCEC3 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:left } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6AC2EB63 { width:201.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .sE3BFB1C7 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4319F160 { margin-left:11.35pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s11CCCD84 { margin-left:11.35pt; text-indent:-11.35pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 69583/01 by Viktor FEDORENKO and 13 Others against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9   November 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mrs   E. Steiner ,   Mr   K. Hajiyev ,   Mr   D. Spielmann ,   Mr   S. Jebens, judges , and   Mr   S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 December 2000, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, whose names are listed in the appendix, are Russian nationals, who live in Tyrnyauz, in the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic of the Russian Federation. They are represented before the Court by Messrs   Z.   Tsipinov and A. Glashev, lawyers practising in Moscow. The respondent Government are represented by Mr   P. Laptev, 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. All applicants are former employees of the Tyrnyauz tungsten and molybdenum processing plant ( Тырныаузский вольфрамо-молибденовый комбинат , “TVMK”). They were diagnosed with work-related diseases and an obligation was imposed on TVMK to pay the applicants disability pensions. In 1996 TVMK stopped payments claiming insufficiency of funds. The applicants applied to a court to recover the outstanding amounts and the interest thereon. They obtained enforceable court judgments in their favour. TVMK did not appeal against these judgments and they became final. Enforcement proceedings were opened. Court bailiffs recovered from TVMK the outstanding wages, but not the interest thereon. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about non-enforcement of final judgments in their favour. THE LAW On 25 November 2003 the application was communicated to the respondent Government. On 16 February 2004 the Government's observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicants' representative was invited to submit written observations in reply by 19   March 2004. On 19 March 2004 the English version of the Government's observations was forwarded to the applicants. The time-limit for the submission of the applicants' observations remained unaffected. As the applicants' observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 19 March 2004, on 2 June 2004 the applicants' representative was advised by fax and by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application. The applicants have not replied. 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 applicants were advised that they were to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. They subsequently received a reminder thereof. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicants do not intend to pursue the application. Furthermore, it 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 the case 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 strike the application out of its list of cases.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President APPENDIX   Fedorenko Viktor Ivanovich   Chikildin Alexander Pavlovich (deceased, the complaint is lodged by his wife, Chikildina Anna Ivanovna)   Gritsenko Nikolay Alexandrovich   Ibragimov Shamil Khadimovich   Khudorozhko Maria Petrovna   Leontyev Boris Alexandrovich   Maystrenko Margatita Pavlovna   Popov Georgiy Ivanovich   Ramenskaya Anastasiya Nikolayevna             Semyachkin Nikolay Ivanovich             Tugushev Alexei Magomed-Alievich             Vysotskiy Alexei Ivanovich             Zamorozov Vasiliy Vasilievich             Zvedre Marina Alexandrovna