CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 janvier 2007

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6A074E04 { width:26.04pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; 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 } .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 } .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. 2521/05 by Vladimir BUDYNCHUK against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18   January 2007 as a Chamber composed of:      Mr   C.L. Rozakis, President,   Mr   L. Loucaides,   Mrs   F. Tulkens,   Mrs   N. Vajić,   Mr   A. Kovler,   Mr   D. Spielmann,   Mr   S.E. Jebens, judges, and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 August 2004, 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 Vladimir Nikolayevich Budynchuk, is a Russian national who was born in 1918 and lives in Borisoglebsk, in the Voronezh Region. 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. The applicant sued the Military Department of the Voronezh Region for old-age pension arrears. On 25 June 2003 the Borisoglebsk Town Court of the Voronezh Region allowed the applicant’s action and awarded him 42,824.76 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 1,224 euros) against the Military Department of the Voronezh Region. The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 5 July 2003. On 13 October 2003 the applicant received RUR 12.24. On 8 September 2004 the applicant received RUR 2,987.76. On 1 November 2004 the applicant received the final instalment of RUR   39,824.76. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained about the delay in enforcement of the judgment of the Borisoglebsk Town Court of the Voronezh Region of 25   June 2003. THE LAW On 5 September 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government. On 21 December 2005 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 13 March 2006. On 6 February 2006 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected. As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by the indicated time-limit, on 4 May 2006 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. The applicant received the letter on 19 May 2006. To date he has 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 applicant was advised that he was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He was subsequently reminded thereof. He was also informed about the consequence of his failure to submit the observations. The applicant has not replied to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his 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 the Court 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.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President