Application no. 21940/03
by Boris Grigoryevich SHPYNOV
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 June 2003,
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 applicant, Boris Grigoryevich Shpynov, is a Russian national who lives in Zarechniy, a town in the Sverdlovsk Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
In 1959-62 the applicant worked in a nuclear contamination area adjacent to Semipalatinsk, a former Soviet and now Kazakh spacecraft launch pad.
In 2002-2003 he unsuccessfully applied to various Russian authorities for compensation of health impairments caused by the contamination.
On 23 April 2004 the Zarechniy Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region granted the applicant’s action for compensation for pecuniary damage against the social security department of the Zarechniy Town Administration (Управление социальной защиты населения города Заречный Свердловской области) and awarded him a lump sum of RUR 125,303.32 (~ EUR 3631.60) as compensation for pecuniary damage and monthly payments of RUR 4,391.77 (~ EUR 127.28) starting from 1 April 2004. The Court ordered that the amount of monthly payments indicated in the judgment be adjusted to take account of increases in the minimum monthly wage.
The judgment in the applicant’s favour was not enforced until 1 March 2006.
Without invoking any Convention Article the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Zarechniy Town Court of 23 April 2004.
In March 2006 the applicant informed the Court that on 1 February 2006 the Zarechniy District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region approved a friendly settlement between him and the authorities related to the issue of the non-enforcement of the above judgment. In view of this he was no longer interested in pursuing his application before the Court.
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 takes note of the fact that the applicant reached an agreement with the authorities and that, therefore, he no longer wants to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
SHPYNOV v. RUSSIA DECISION
SHPYNOV v. RUSSIA DECISION