Application no. 21414/04 
by Yevdokiya Fateyevna POLUPANOVA 
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 19 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr P. Lorenzen, President
 Mr K. Jungwiert
 Mr V. Butkevych
 Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska
 Mr A. Kovler
 Mr J. Borrego Borrego, 
 Mrs R. Jaeger, judges
and Ms C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 March 2001,

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

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:


The applicant, Ms Yevdokiya Fateyevna Polupanova, is a Russian national who was born in 1907 and lives in Novovoronezh. She was represented before the Court by Ms S. Poznakhirina, a lawyer practising in Novovoronezh. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, representative of the Russian Federation before the European Court of Human Rights.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 31 August 2000 the Novovoronezhskiy Town Court of the Voronezh Region granted the applicant’s claim against the Novovoronezh Social Security Service and awarded her 10,300.86 Russian roubles for pension arrears.

The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force. On 30 October 2000 a writ of execution was issued.

In February 2003 the applicant deceased.

According to the Government, the judgment was executed on 2 March 2005 and the amount was received by the applicant’s heir.


The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-execution of the judgment in her favour.


The Court notes that no appropriate person expressed the wish to pursue the application on behalf of the applicant. 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 examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen 
 Registrar President