CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 avril 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 } .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 } .sBFD8E45 { width:185.97pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 44749/05 by Igor YEVSEYEV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   George Nicolaou, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 November 2005, 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, Mr Igor Stanislavovich Yevseyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in the town of Syktyvkar in the Komi Republic. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mrs V. Milinchuk. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. By judgment of 8   February 2002, the Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic ordered that the local administration to provide the applicant with a flat allowing at least nine sq.   m per person and taking account of his entitlement to additional living surface equivalent to a separate room. On 15 April 2002 the judgment became final. On 25   June 2002 the bailiff service opened enforcement proceedings. It appears that the judgment was not enforced. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 about non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. THE LAW By letter dated 13 September 2006 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 15 November 2006. By letter dated 4 April 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 15 November 2006 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received this letter on 16   April 2007. Having read that letter, the applicant wrote to the Court on 19 April 2007 complaining that his application had been rejected. On 31 May 2007 the applicant was informed by the Court that his application was still pending before the Court, reiterating, however, the rule under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. On 22 June 2007 the applicant sent a letter to the Court from which it followed that he wanted to pursue his application and that he had apparently not received the Court’s letter of 13   September 2006. By letter dated 19 July 2007, the applicant received one more copy of the Government’s observations and was invited to submit by 13   September 2007 any observations he wanted to make in reply. The applicant did not reply. By letter dated 18 October 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations and his position regarding a friendly settlement had expired on 13   September and 15 October 2007, respectively. The applicant’s attention was once more drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The applicant did not reply. Thus, the Court considers that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. André Wampach   Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar   President