by Vladimir Ivanovich VLADIMIROV
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on
1 October 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 January 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Ivanovich Vladimirov, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Plavsk, the Tula Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, 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 27 November 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for damages. The district court held the first hearing on 17 November 2003. On 7 September 2006 the Tsentralny District Court of Tula granted the applicant’s claims in part and awarded him a sum of money. The respondent appealed. On 5 April 2007 the Tula Regional Court amended the first-instance judgment on appeal and increased the amount of the applicant’s award. The respondent unsuccessfully applied for supervisory review.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of his civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about lack of effective domestic remedies.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
By letter dated 17 September 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 19 November 2008.
By letter dated 19 February 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 19 November 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. However, no response has been received.
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 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