Application no. 31925/03
by Galina Arkadyevna OSKINA
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 2 March 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 September 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, Ms Galina Arkadyevna Oskina, is a Russian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Mirniy. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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.
On 2 April 2003 the Mirninskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic granted the applicant’s civil action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and awarded her 102,056 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 2,924 euros).
On 5 May 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment on appeal.
On 2 June 2003 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.
At the time the application was lodged with the Court the judgment remained unenforced.
The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of the Mirninskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of 2 April 2003.
On 9 March 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 8 July 2005 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit written observations in reply by 14 September 2005.
On 5 August 2005 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 14 September 2005, on 14 November 2005 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application.
As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 14 November 2005 reached the applicant on 26 November 2005.
The applicant did not reply.
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 notes that the applicant was requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. She subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of her failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application. Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.
In these circumstances it considers that 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.
Santiago Quesada Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President
OSKINA v. RUSSIA DECISION
OSKINA v. RUSSIA DECISION