CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 novembre 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .s8D004245 { width:226.78pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 57056/00 by Andrey MOSKVITIN against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22   November 2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   A.B. Baka , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Ms   D. Jočienė ,   Mr   D. Popović, judges , and   Mrs   S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 December 1999, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Andrey Innokentyevich Moskvitin, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Yakutsk in the Yakutia (Sakha) Republic of the Russian Federation. The respondent Government are represented by Mr   P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 11 October 1998 the applicant was injured in a traffic accident. A criminal case was opened against S., the perpetrator of the accident. The applicant lodged a civil action for damages against S. On 30 July 1999 the Yakutsk Town Court discontinued the criminal prosecution of S. on the basis of a general amnesty. However, on 17   September 1999 the Yakutsk Town Court found for the applicant in his civil case and partially granted his claims. Both the applicant and S.   appealed against the judgment. On 13 October 1999 the Yakutia Supreme Court upheld the essential elements of the judgment of 17 September 1999. The judgment became final and no ordinary appeal lay against it. There then followed three supervisory reviews which nevertheless, ultimately, terminated on 24 April 2001 when the Supreme Court reinstated and confirmed the judgments of 17   September and 13 October 1999. THE LAW On 24 November 2003 the application was communicated to the respondent Government. On 15 March 2004 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 13 May 2004, which he did not do. On 9 June 2004 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations by 15 July 2004 at the latest might result in the strike-out of his application. The applicant received this letter on 26   June 2004, but did not reply. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, it 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 the application 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 strike the application out of its list of cases.   S. Dollé   A.B. Baka   Registrar   President