Application no. 77455/01
by Ivan Maksimovich REZAYEV
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 8 November 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 Ivan Maksimovich Rezayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Kiev, in Ukraine. 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.
The applicant receives an old-age pension.
On an unspecified date the applicant sued the Pension Fund of the Kalininskiy District of Novosibirsk for increase of his pension and for pension arrears.
On 29 October 1998 the Kalininskiy District Court of Novosibirsk granted the applicant’s action in part. The court held that his pension should be increased according to the pension law, that the defendant should pay the applicant RUR 596.61 in arrears and dismissed the reminder of the claims.
On 28 January 1999 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
On 24 May 2001 the Presidium of the Novosibirsk Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings and upon an application of the president of the Novosibirsk Regional Court, quashed the judgments of 29 October 1998 and 28 January 1999 in the part concerning the increase of the applicant’s pension, dismissed that claim and upheld the reminder of the judgments.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the final judgment had been quashed by way of a supervisory review, that the president of the Novosibirsk Regional Court had had no right to lodge an application for a review and to participate in the determination of his case, and that the domestic courts had misinterpreted the law.
On 25 May 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 7 September 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 10 November 2005.
On 11 October 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 10 November 2005, on 12 December 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 12 December 2005 reached the applicant on 22 December 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. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about the consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom 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.
Santiago Quesada Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President
REZAYEV v. RUSSIA DECISION
REZAYEV v. RUSSIA DECISION