European Court of Human Rights

IRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 40561/04
by Yuriy Borisovich PALANOV
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 January 2009 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 application lodged on 3 October 2004,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Yuriy Borisovich Palanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Akhtubinsk, the Astrakhan Region. The respondent Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, 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.

The applicant is a retired serviceman. By virtue of his status of a retired serviceman the applicant is allegedly entitled to free housing to be provided by the State.

Having faced the authorities’ refusal to grant the claim, he brought court proceedings in this respect.

On 12 February 2004 the Tushinskiy District Court decided in the applicant’s favour and ordered the District Council “Northern Tushino” of the City of Moscow to grant the applicant housing at a chosen place of residence.

The judgment of 12 February 2004 came into force on an unspecified date.

On 6 April 2004 the bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment.

On 22 November 2004 the bailiffs returned the writ of enforcement to the applicant citing the fact that it had not been possible to enforce the judgment because of the lack of available housing.

By a first instance judgment of 13 January 2005 the District Court confirmed the bailiffs’ decision of 22 November 2004.

The judgment of 13 January 2005 was upheld on appeal on 4 April 2005.

It appears that the judgment of 12 February 2004 has remained without enforcement to date.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the authorities refused to enforce the judgment of 12 February 2004.

THE LAW

On 22 November 2007 the President of the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 20 February 2008.

By letter of 22 February 2008 the applicant was requested to submit, by 25 April 2008, his comments on the Government’s observations.

In view of the absence of the applicant’s reply, by letter of 15 October 2008, sent by registered mail, the applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provided that the Court could strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances led to the conclusion that an applicant did not intend to pursue the application.

The Court notes that, despite the Court’s letters of 22 February and 15 October 2008, the applicant has not submitted his observations in reply to those of the Government. Nor has he made any other submissions to the Court.

Against this background, the Court considers that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the application. The Court finds no reasons concerning the respect for Human Rights warranting the further examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention 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.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President