CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 décembre 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 } .sFC1B4D41 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s8196230 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.35pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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. 15647/06 by Aleksey Petrovich SHMAKOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11   December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Dean Spielmann,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 January 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, Mr Aleksey Petrovich Shmakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Belaya Kalitva, the Rostov Region. He is represented before the Court by Ms. V.I. Leonidchenko, a lawyer practicing in Belaya Kalitva. The respondent Government were represented by Ms   V.   Milinchuk, their former Representative at the European Court of Human Rights. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 1 December 2004 the Belaya Kalitva Town Court of the Rostov Region ordered the Administration of Belaya Kalitva and of the Belokalitvinskiy District of the Rostov Region to grant the applicant a separate well-equipped four-room flat for a family of four members. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 13   December 2004. On 12 January 2005 the enforcement proceedings started. On 23 July 2008 the applicant recalled the unexecuted writs from the bailiffs' service and asked the bailiffs to discontinue the enforcement proceedings. On the same date the enforcement proceedings were discontinued. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 1 December 2004. THE LAW On 25 April 2008 the President of the Chamber decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. On 23 July 2008 the applicant informed the Court that he did not intend to pursue his application before the Court. According to the applicant, he decided not to maintain the case, because he had discovered the circumstances “which [his] family members had been hiding from him” and which were “directly related to his claim to provide him and his family with housing”, as raised in his application to the Court. The Court notes that the applicant no longer wishes to pursue his application (cf. 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.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President