Application no. 34006/02
by Petr Aleksandrovich KALINKIN
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr L. Loucaides,
Mrs F. Tulkens,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 August 2002,
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, Mr Petr Aleksandrovich Kalinkin, is a Russian national, who lives in the town of Kansk in the Krasnoyarsk Region. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, the 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 24 March 2000 the Kansk Town Court granted the applicant’s civil action against the Kansk police department and awarded him 23,758.80 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 860 euros). The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
On 14 April 2000 enforcement proceedings were instituted, but the judgment was not enforced because the police department lacked the necessary funds.
On 2 December 2005 the judgment was enforced in full. The applicant signed a statement confirming that the money had been paid to him and indicating that he had no complaints.
The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of 24 March 2000.
On 10 February 2006 the Court received from the Government a copy of the declaration addressed to the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights and signed by the applicant on 3 February 2006. The relevant part of the declaration, as translated from Russian, read as follows:
“Having regard to the fact that my claims against the Kansk police department of the Krasnoyarsk Region of the Russian Federation... had been granted in full, I do not have any claims against the authorities of the Russian Federation.
All issues were determined by negotiations with internal authorities.
I ask the European Court of Human Rights to discontinue the examination of my application no. 34006/02 “Kalinkin against Russia” and return it to me.”
The Government also provided the Court with copies of financial documents showing that the specified amount had been transferred to the applicant’s account. The Government insisted that the applicant did not intend to pursue his application before the Court.
On 13 February 2006 the applicant was invited to submit his comments on the Government’s letter.
On 7 March 2006 the Court received the original declaration of 3 February 2006 from the applicant.
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 signed the declaration by which he had requested the Court not to examine his application. The Court observes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his 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.
Søren Nielsen Christos
KALINKIN v. RUSSIA DECISION
KALINKIN v. RUSSIA DECISION