CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 3 mars 2005

.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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDFF9B1EC { width:27.55pt; display:inline-block } .s2A2A9F22 { width:204.14pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 55941/00 by Aleksandr Yevgenyevich ROGALEV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 March 2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   B.M. Zupančič , President ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mrs   A. Gyulumyan ,   Mr   David Thór Björgvinsson, judges ,, and Mr M. Villiger , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 October 1999, 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Rogalev, is a Russian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Chita. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. A. Laptev, 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. In 1954 the applicant took part in nuclear tests. As a result the applicant suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. Following the applicant's medical examination the authorities granted him a special status of a disabled person. This status entitled the applicant to certain social benefits. In 1997 the applicants brought proceedings against the regional social security office claiming the allegedly unpaid amounts of the social benefits. On 12 November 1997 the Tungokochenskiy District Court of the Chita Region partially accepted the applicant's claim ordering to pay him RUR   10,842   [1] . The judgment was not appealed and became final. It appears that a part of the sum awarded by the court (RUR   4,842) was paid by the defendant within one year after the judgment had been rendered, in June 1998. As to the rest of the judgment debt (RUR   6,000), it remained unpaid until July 2003, despite numerous complaints by the applicant to the courts and the bailiff service. In November 2002 the applicant brought civil proceedings claiming damages for non-payment of the judgment debt. On 24 January 2003 the court awarded him RUR 16,144 as compensation for the lengthy non-enforcement of the court judgment of 1997. This sum was paid to the applicant in March 2003. On 18 June 2003 the applicant was awarded RUR   2,096 as a compensation for the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 1997. This amount was received by the applicant in October 2003. COMPLAINTS The applicant first complains about the outcome of the court proceedings regarding the amount of social benefits due to him. He also complains, at least in substance, about the alleged non-enforcement of the court decision in his favour. The applicant invokes Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 in this respect. THE LAW As follows from the documents submitted by the parties, the outstanding amount due to the applicant by virtue of the judgment of 1997 had been paid to him. Furthermore, by the decisions of 24 January and 18   June 2003, the applicant was awarded a compensation for the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 1997. Finally, on 11 November 2004 the applicant informed the Court that on 21   October 2004 he had concluded a friendly settlement with the social security office of the Tungokochenskiy District. As follows from the text of the friendly settlement, the applicant agreed to withdraw his application pending before the Court provided that within three months after the striking-out of the application by the Court from its list of cases, the authorities would pay him a compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused by the lengthy non-enforcement of the court judgment in his favour. Pursuant to the agreement, the payment of this compensation would constitute a final settlement of the case. The Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application within the meaning of Article   37 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as material, reads: “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 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 application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and that the cases 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.   Mark Villiger   Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar   President [1] ~1,082 £ at this time