by Yuriy Ivanovich ZHADANENKO
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 March 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Yuriy Ivanovich Zhadanenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in St Petersburg. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former 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.
In 2004 the applicant obtained a judgment that entitled him to retirement from service and to a State flat. This judgment became binding but its enforcement was delayed.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment.
On 16 January 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 March 2008.
By letter dated 9 September 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 19 March 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 applicant received this letter on 4 October 2008. 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