CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 octobre 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 } .sE7A0A3F4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.25pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sB06EEFA8 { width:203.97pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 3410/04 by Yevgeniy Nikolayevich CHEBOTAREV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 2   October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 December 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Nikolayevich Chebotarev, is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and lives in the town of Velyuchinsk-3 in the Kamchatka Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev and then by Ms V. Milinchuk, both former Representatives 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. On 23 January 2003 the Military Court of the Baltic Fleet upheld the applicant's claims against the Military-Fleet Institute and awarded him 8,040.25 Russian roubles in service-related benefits. The judgment was final and not amenable to appeal. Enforcement proceedings were instituted, but the judgment was not enforced because the debtor lacked funds for enforcement of the award. On 4 February 2008 the respondent authority executed the judgment in full. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of 23 January 2003 in his favour.   THE LAW On 21 May 2007 the President of the Chamber decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The Government and the applicant each filed their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. On 11 March 2008 the applicant submitted that the judgment of 23   January 2003 had been enforced in full on 4 February 2008, and that he did not have any further claims against the Government in respect of his application. On 9 April 2008 the Registry asked the applicant to confirm his intention to withdraw the case. The applicant did not reply.   The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application (cf. Article 37 §   1   (a) of the Convention). The Court further notes that the judgment in the applicant's favour has been enforced in full. 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   Nina Vajić Deputy Registrar   President