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 } .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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8AB83B9 { width:147.82pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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. 9903/06 by Tatyana Petrovna YAKOVLEVA 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 1 February 2006, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Tatyana Petrovna Yakovleva, is a Russian national who was born in 1934 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. On 16 June 2004 the Novovoronezh Town Court accepted the applicant’s civil action against the Novovoronezh Town Social Security Service, awarded her 1,772 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 50 euros) in arrears and established the monthly rate of social benefits of RUR 679 (approximately EUR 19). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 28 June 2004. COMPLAINT   The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Novovoronezh Town Court of 16 June 2004. THE LAW On 22 June 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government. On 30 October 2006 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits were received. The Court asked the applicant to submit written observations in reply by 8 January 2006. On 28 November 2006 the Court received a letter from the applicant. She noted that she had mistakenly submitted two applications to the Court. On 14 July 2004 she and two other individuals lodged the first application which was assigned application no. 34436/04. On 1 February 2006 she submitted the present application which was registered under application no. 9903/06. Both applications concern the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 16 June 2004 and were communicated to the Government in 2006. However, taking into account that her complaints about the non-enforcement of that judgment would be examined in the course of the proceedings concerning application no. 34436/04, the applicant wished to withdraw her application no. 9903/06 and asked the Court to discontinue the examination of that application and strike it out of the list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The applicant’s letter of 28 November 2006 was sent to the Government for information. 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 does not wish to pursue her application no. 9903/06. She asked the Court to discontinue the examination of the present application and strike the case out of the Court’s list of cases. Furthermore, 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 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