CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 janvier 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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. 24057/04 by Lyudmila GRISHCHENKO against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17   January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Anatoli Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni, judges,   and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 June 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 deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Lyudmila Leonidovna Grishchenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Cherkessk in the Karachaevo-Cherkessiya Republic. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V.   Milinchuk, 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 State for compensation in respect of the loss caused by the delay in enforcement of an earlier court award. By judgment of 11 September 2002, the Cherkessk Town Court of the Karachaevo-Cherkessiya Republic awarded the applicant 20,850 Russian roubles against the Government of the Russian Federation. It appears that the judgment remains without enforcement. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of 11   September 2002. THE LAW On 5 November 2007 the applicant informed the Court that she had accepted a settlement proposal and waived any further claims against Russia in respect of the facts concerning the present application. She provided the Court with a copy of the agreement signed by the parties whereby the Government had undertaken to pay the applicant 2,500 euros in respect of the full and final resolution of the case. The Government also undertook to reimburse any tax that may be chargeable on that amount, upon presentation by the applicant of the official confirmation of its payment. The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows: “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 ... (b)     the matter has been resolved; ... 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 takes note of the settlement reached between the parties and considers that the matter has been resolved. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify 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 in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) 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