CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 14 février 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB493FB6A { width:34.39pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC65EB21A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt } .sA456029A { width:14.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8FB79571 { width:14.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF2492270 { width:14.36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8E1BF532 { width:8.36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s71833996 { width:42.55pt; display:inline-block } .s6D883768 { width:217.31pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 12242/03 by Sergey Igorevich BELKIN against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 February 2006 as a Chamber composed of:       Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   A. Kovler, judges ,   and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 March 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, Sergey Igorevich Belkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and lives in the Amur Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. By two decisions (of 20 April 2001 and 4 May 2001) the Military Court of Belgorod Garrison awarded the applicant 6,011 Russian Roubles, to be recovered from the Ministry of Defence. However, for a certain period of time those decisions remained unexecuted. On 22 March 2003 the applicant lodged an application before the European Court complaining of lengthy non-enforcement of the court judgments in his favour. On 11 December 2003 the application was communicated by the Court to the respondent Government for observations. On 1 March 2004 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. The applicant was invited to submit written observations in reply by 15 April 2004. As the applicant’s observations in reply had not been received by 15 April 2004, on 14 June 2004 the applicant was advised that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application. The applicant did not reply. On 14 September 2005 the Court sent a copy of the letter of 14 June 2004 by registered mail. However, no reply followed. THE LAW 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 advised that he was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. No response has been received to date and the applicant did not inform the Court of his new contact details if he had moved. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. 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.     Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President