CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 mars 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 } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .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 } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s32F15623 { width:214.45pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 15677/06 by Vasiliy SHISHKIN against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 March 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 Vasiliy Mikhaylovich Shishkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Saratov. The respondent Government are 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 and his wife live on the top floor in a block of flats. The roof being in a state of disrepair, their flat regularly suffered from leaks in the winter of 2002. The applicant and his wife sued the municipal housing maintenance company of the Zavodskoy District of Saratov and the housing co-operative Prestige-56 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages caused by their failure to repair the roof. On 13 July 2004 the Zavodskoy District Court of Saratov found for the applicant and his wife and held that both the municipal housing maintenance company and the housing co-operative should pay the applicant 14,038.75 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damages, RUB 500 in respect of non-pecuniary damages, and RUB 400 in expert fees. The housing co-operative was also ordered to repair the roof. The judgment became binding and enforceable on 27 July 2004. The applicant received writs of execution. On 16 January 2007 the amounts awarded were credited into the applicant’s bank account. On 13 June 2007 the Government submitted a copy of the applicant’s handwritten statement in which he asked the Court to discontinue examination of the present application. The applicant did not submit any further comments. COMPLAINT The applicant complained, without specifying the Convention provision, about the continued failure of the municipal housing maintenance company to pay the money awarded to him.   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 letter that he does not intend to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court notes that the judgment in his favour has already been enforced. It therefore considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of their complaints. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list of cases. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President