FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 25962/03 
by Vladimir Petrovich MINKO 
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on  
20 October 2005 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President
 Mr L. Loucaides
 Mrs F. Tulkens
 Mr P. Lorenzen
 Mrs N. Vajić
 Mrs S. Botoucharova, 
 Mr A. Kovler, judges,

and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 July 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vladimir Petrovich Minko, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Seryshevo-1 of the Amur Region. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant, an active military serviceman at the material time, sued his military unit requesting payment of salary and service-related benefits.

On 26 September 2001 the Military Court of the Belogorsk Garrison granted his claims and awarded him arrears in the amount of RUR 9,302 and RUR 487 for costs and expenses.

The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 8 October 2001.

On 12 November 2001 a writ of execution was issued.

The judgment had not been enforced by the time the applicant lodged his application with the Court.

It appears from the Government’s observations that the judgment of 26 September 2001 was enforced in full on 21 October 2003.

COMPLAINT

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

THE LAW

Article 37 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows:

“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 notes that on 4 March 2004 the Registry invited the applicant to submit by 15 April 2004 any written observations he might wish to make in reply to the observations submitted by the Government.

On 7 April 2004 the Registry forwarded to the applicant the Government’s observations translated into English and reminded him of the established time-limit for the submission of his observations. The applicant failed to reply.

On 14 June 2004 the Registry sent a registered letter to the applicant’s known address informing him that the period allowed for submission of the observation had expired and warned him that in the absence of the observations the Court might consider that the he did not wish to pursue the application. On 4 August 2004 the letter was returned by the post office to the Court as the applicant had left his place of residence and his new address was unknown.

The applicant failed to inform the Court of his change of address or otherwise inform the Court of his whereabouts. Neither did he submit any information following his lodging the application on 4 July 2003.

In these circumstances the Court finds, having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, that the applicant has lost interest in his application and no longer intends to pursue it before the Court. 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, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.

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  
 Registrar President

MINKO v. RUSSIA DECISION


MINKO v. RUSSIA DECISION