Application no. 74369/01
by Aleksey Vasilyevich KALININ
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
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 16 July 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Aleksey Vasilyevich Kalinin, was a Russian national who was born in 1939 and lived in the Moscow Region. The respondent Government were 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.
In October 1999 the applicant sued the Fryazino Town Pension Fund for an increase of his old-age pension.
On 17 February 2000 the Shchyolkovo Town Court of the Moscow Region made the judgment in the applicant’s favour.
On 4 April 2000 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
On 16 August 2000 the Pension Fund requested the Shchyolkovo Town Court to reconsider the judgment of 17 February 2000 due to a newly-discovered circumstance. The Pension Fund claimed that on 29 December 1999 the Instruction on the Application of Limitations established by the Pension Law had been adopted. The Pension Fund contended that since it had been unaware of the Instruction at the moment when the judgment of 17 February 2000 had been given, the judgment should be reconsidered.
On 4 April 2001 the Shchyolkovo Town Court granted the Fund’s request for reconsideration of the judgment of 17 February 2000, quashed that judgment and discontinued the enforcement proceedings.
On 14 May 2001 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the decision of 4 April 2001.
Without invoking any Convention provision, the applicant complained that the judgment of 17 February 2000 was quashed and that he was not able to receive the pension in the amount established by the judgment of 17 February 2000.
On 3 June 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 16 September 2005 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. The Government informed the Court that the applicant had died.
On 20 September 2005 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s home address.
As no response was received, on 2 February 2006 the Registry sent a letter by registered mail to the applicant’s home address. The Court noted that the failure to respond to that letter 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 2 February 2006 reached the applicant’s wife on 22 February 2006.
No response followed.
The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant died and that no member of his family or heir has expressed a wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in his stead.
In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application, that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and that the case should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine that would require to continue the proceedings by the virtue of that provision.
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
KALININ v. RUSSIA DECISION
KALININ v. RUSSIA DECISION