by Leonid Abramovich RAGINSKIY
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 October 2004,
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 applicant, Mr Leonid Abramovich Raginskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Chelyabinsk. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, the 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 18 July 2003 the Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk granted the applicant’s claim against the Ministry of Finance and awarded him 171,223.9 Russian roubles in salary arrears.
On 23 October 2003 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and the latter entered into force.
According to the Government, on 19 November 2004 the respondent authority enforced the award in full.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 18 July 2003.
He further complained under Article 14 that the judgment in his favour had not been enforced because he was of Jewish origin.
On 11 September 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
By letter dated 17 December 2007 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 28 January 2008.
By letter dated 13 March 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 28 January 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 Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing 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 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.
Nielsen Christos Rozakis