European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Oleg ILYIN v Russia - 15647/05 [2010] ECHR 653 (22 April 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/653.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 653
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
15647/05
by Oleg ILYIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 March 2005,
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 Oleg Sergeyevich Ilyin, is a Russian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Moscow. The respondent 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.
The applicant was the owner of State premium bonds of 1982 having a total nominal value of 43,690 non-denominated Russian roubles (RUR). These bonds were issued by the USSR Government in 1982 for financing certain State programmes. According to the conditions of the issue, the redemption was to take place in 2004 at the latest.
By that date the applicant's bonds had not been redeemed.
In November 2004 the applicant brought proceedings before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation challenging the President's failure to adopt the redemption programme.
On 14 October 2004 the Supreme Court declared the applicant's claim inadmissible, holding that the President had immunity in civil judicial proceedings. On 14 December 2004 the Appeals Division of the Supreme Court upheld the inadmissibility decision on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained, without invoking any Convention provisions, about the failure of the Russian Federation to redeem the 1982 State premium bonds.
THE LAW
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(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.”
The Court observes that, by letter of 30 June 2009, the Government's observations were forwarded to the applicant who was requested to submit observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 7 October 2009. No response was received.
By letter of 30 November 2009 sent by registered mail, the applicant 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 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. It appears from the undated acknowledgment-of-receipt card that the Court's letter reached the applicant's residence. 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 his 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
Registrar President