European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 34970/03
by Aleksey Antonovich SAKHNO
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 August 2003,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksey Antonovich Sakhno, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lived in Bataysk, the Rostov Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev and subsequently 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 22 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court ordered the Social Welfare Office of Bataysk of the Rostov Region to pay the applicant 4,800 Russian Roubles (“RUB”) monthly in respect of the compensation for health damage for the period from 1 January 2002 to 1 January 2003 and RUB 576 monthly in respect of food allowance. The court ordered that the sums awarded be index-linked in accordance with the domestic legislation.

On 16 April 2003 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment, and it entered into force.

On 28 January 2004 the award was enforced in full.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 thereto about non-enforcement of the judgment of 22 January 2003 in his favour.

THE LAW

On 28 November 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 20 February 2007 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. The Government informed the Court that on 22 October 2004 the applicant had died.

By letter dated 28 February 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s home address.

Since no response was received, on 4 December 2007 the Registry sent a letter by registered mail to the applicant’s home address. The Court noted that the failure to respond to that letter might result in the strike-out of the application.

As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, on 14 January 2008 S., apparently the applicant’s relative, received the letter. No response followed.

The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant died and that no member of his family or heir has expressed a wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in his stead. In these circumstances the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) 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 examination of the application to be continued. 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