CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 octobre 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 } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width: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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s73FE938C { width:216.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 35666/03 by Marina Kimovna VESELOVSKAYA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23   October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   L. Loucaides , President,         Mr   A. Kovler,   Mrs   E. Steiner,   Mr   K. Hajiyev,   Mr   D. Spielmann,   Mr   S.E. Jebens,   Mr   G. Malinverni, judges, and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 September 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 deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Marina Kimovna Veselovskaya, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in the town of Vilyuchinsk in the Kamchatka Region. The respondent Government are represented by Mrs   V.   Milinchuk, 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. The applicant is a former military officer. On 28 April 2001 the Military Court of the 35th Garrison upheld the applicant’s action against the head of military unit no. 69002, authorised her reinstatement and awarded her salary arrears, pension and service-related benefits starting from 18 April 2000. The Military Court noted that the applicant should be dismissed after the payment of the judgment award. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. On 4 October 2001 the applicant was reinstated, but the judgment award was not paid. On 3 December 2001 the applicant was dismissed. She applied to the Military Court of the 35th Garrison seeking annulment of the orders of 4   October and 3 December 2001 and payment of salary arrears and service-related benefits. On 24 April 2002 the Military Court of the 35 th Garrison upheld the applicant’s action, ordered that the head of the military unit should reinstate and pay her salary arrears, service-related benefits and compensation for travel expenses. On 11 November 2002 the Military Court of the Pacific Fleet quashed the judgment of 24 April 2002 in the part concerning the compensation for travel expenses, remitted that matter for a fresh examination and upheld the remainder of the judgment. It appears that the claim for compensation for travel expenses was subsequently dismissed by the courts of two levels of jurisdiction. The judgments of 28 April 2001 and 24   April 2002 were fully enforced on 27 February 2004. By the letter of 4 September 2007, the applicant informed the Court that the judgments had been fully enforced and that she did not intend to pursue her application before the Court. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgments of 28 April 2001 and 24 April 2002 were not enforced. 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.” It follows from the applicant’s letters of 4 September 2007 that she does not intend to pursue her application. The Court further notes that the judgments in the applicant’s favour were fully enforced. The Court therefore 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   L oukis Loucaides   Registrar   President