by Yelizaveta Andreyevna SOLOVYEVA
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 May 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 June 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mrs Yelizaveta Andreyevna Solovyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1921 and lives in Voronezh. She is represented before the Court by Mr A. Rashevskiy, a lawyer practising in Voronezh. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Ms V. Milinchuk and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, 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 20 October 2000 the Tsentralnyy District Court of the Voronezh Region upheld the applicant’s action against the Social Security Department of the Tsentralnyy District Council of Voronezh and awarded her 2,599.18 Russian roubles in pension arrears. The judgment entered into force ten days later. It was executed in full on 13 December 2005.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto about delayed enforcement of the judgment in her favour.
On 29 February 2008 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
By letter dated 26 June 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative who was requested to submit observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 28 August 2008. No response followed.
By letter of 21 November 2008, sent by registered mail, the applicant’s representative was advised that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court would strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court on 6 January 2009, the applicant’s representative had received the letter on 5 December 2008. Nevertheless, he did not reply to the Court’s reminder.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be considered as no longer wishing to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court further considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of his complaints (Article 37 § 1 in fine). 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 of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis