CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 16 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 } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .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 } .s4A0CEAF8 { width:194.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 25977/05 by Nail Abdullovich TATLYBAYEV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16   October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 June 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Nail Abdullovich Tatlybayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Neryungri, a town in Yakutia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms   V.   Milinchuk, former 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. On 31 October 2002 the Neryungri Town Court granted the applicant's pecuniary claim against the Government. The judgment became binding on 9   December 2002 but was not enforced. On 10 November 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Yakutia quashed the judgment on supervisory review. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement and supervisory review of the judgment. THE LAW By letter dated 8 February 2008 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 11 April 2008. By letter dated 25 June 2008 sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant's observations had expired on 11 April 2008 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 14 July 2008. On 15 August 2008 the applicant wrote to the Court that he wished to pursue his application. The Court notes that the applicant has not to date submitted his observations and claims for just satisfaction, and that it took him as long as one month to reply to the Court's warning letter. Since the observed conduct does not in fact support the applicant's purported wish to continue, the Court considers that the applicant may be regarded as no longer intending 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 strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President