BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Nikolay Nikolayevich LEONENKO v Russia - 24434/03 [2010] ECHR 1488 (16 September 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1488.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1488 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
24434/03
by Nikolay Nikolayevich LEONENKO
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George
Nicolaou,
judges,
and
Søren Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 June 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Nikolay Nikolayevich Leonenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Severnyy, the Komi Republic. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, 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.
By the final judgment of 25 November 1998 the Vorkuta Town Court of the Komi Republic ordered the applicant's employee, the State-owned mine Yu. to pay him 43,760 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages. In May 1999 the company paid him RUB 11,111 of this amount.
At some point in 1999 the company became insolvent.
On 30 April 2002 the Vorkuta Town Court index-linked the judgment debt and awarded the applicant RUB 34,067. On 30 October 2002 the Town Court partially allowed the applicant's claim for damages caused by delayed execution of the judgment of 25 November 1998 and ordered the company to pay him RUB 30,000.
It appears that the judgments of 25 November 1998, 30 April and 30 October 2002 have not been fully enforced.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 about non-execution of the judgments of 25 November 1998, 30 April and 30 October 2002 and about unfairness of the proceedings which ended with the judgment of 30 October 2002.
THE LAW
By letter dated 2 February 2009 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 4 April 2009.
By letter dated 2 October 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 4 April 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. On 24 November 2009 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 after 13 June 2005, date of his latest letter to the Court.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
