CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 novembre 2006

.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 } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD79BB263 { width:196.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION   DECISION Application no. 14779/02 by Vladimir Viktorovich TKACHENKO against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mrs   E. Steiner ,   Mr   K. Hajiyev, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 March 2002, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Vladimir Viktorovich Tkachenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in the town of Belaya Kalitva of the Rostov Region. He was represented before the Court by Mr   A.   V.   Leonidchenko, a lawyer practising in Belaya Kalitva. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. In 1986 the applicant took part in a rescue operation on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. He is in receipt of special disability benefits in this connection. Between 1999 and 2004 the applicant instituted a number of proceedings against the local authorities due to their alleged failure to pay certain benefits to which the applicant was entitled due to his participation in the rescue operation at Chernobyl. Some of these proceedings are still pending whereas others finished with judgments in the applicant’s favour, awarding him certain sums of money. COMPLAINTS Under Articles 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of judgments in his favour. THE LAW By letter of 30 June 2005 the Government informed the Court that on 25 April 2005 the applicant had accepted to withdraw the application on the condition that he should be paid 3,000 euros in respect of the damage sustained. They also submitted a copy of the agreement to that effect and the Town Court decision of 25   April 2005 validating the settlement. A copy of that letter with attachments was sent to the applicant for comments. In view of the absence of the applicant’s reply, by letter of the Registry of 11 May 2006, sent by registered mail, the applicant was again invited to submit his comments. To date the Registry of the Court has not received any reply from the applicant. Having regard to the above, the Court notes that the parties have reached a settlement in respect of this application and finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Furthermore, the Court finds that no public policy reasons require a continued examination of the application (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 strike the application out of its list of cases.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President