CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 25 novembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1D01523D { margin-top:36pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s82D7B801 { width:22.93pt; display:inline-block } .sF9287AF { width:174.97pt; display:inline-block } .s7C5951C6 { width:38.64pt; display:inline-block } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBAC01F9D { width:210.34pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 21077/06 by Vladimir Pavlovich KAZAKOV and application no. 30005/07 by Zinaida Ivanovna KOLESNICHENKO against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25   November 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 28 April 2006 and 19   May 2007 respectively, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The application no. 21077/06 was lodged by Mr Vladimir Pavlovich Kazakov, born in 1926, and the application no. 30005/07 by Mrs Zinaida Ivanovna Kolesnichenko, born in 1938. The applicants are two Russian nationals living in Novocherkassk, the Rostov Region. They were represented before the Court by Mr P.V. Sedlyar, a lawyer practising in Novocherkassk. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 1) Application no. 21077/06 On 15 September 2004 the Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region (the Town Court) granted Mr Kazakov’s claims against his former employer, the military commissariat, and made pecuniary awards in his favour in respect of pension arrears. The judgment entered into force ten days later and was enforced in full on 15 May 2007. 2) Application no. 30005/07 On 30 August 2004 the Town Court ordered the military commissariat to pay a lump sum in pension arrears to the applicant’s husband. The judgment acquired legal force ten days later On 18 December 2004 the applicant’s husband passed away. By the decision of 22 March 2007 (as rectified on 23 April 2007) the Town Court found that Mrs Kolesnichenko was entitled to claim the judgment debt as the deceased husband’s legal successor. On 12 November 2007 the full amount awarded by the judgment of 30   August 2004 was transferred to the applicant’s banking account. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 about the delayed enforcement of the judgments. THE LAW 1. Given that the applications at hand concern similar sets of facts, the Court decides to consider them in a single decision. 2. By two letters of 2 July 2009 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicants wished to withdraw their respective applications, since the judgments in their favour had been fully enforced. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court further notes that the domestic awards in favour of the applicants had been executed. 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 cases at hand. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications out of the Court’s list of cases. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President