FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4313/05
by Fedor GOGICHAYEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and  Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 December 2004,
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 FACTS
The applicant, Mr Fedor Uruzmagovich Gogichayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Vladikavkaz. The respondent Government are represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, 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 brought a civil action against the Government, seeking to recover the monetary value of a State promissory note for purchase of a Russian-made car.
On 19 May 2003 the Ust-Yanskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic found for the applicant and awarded him 138,967 Russian roubles (RUR).
On 16 June 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (hereinafter – “the Supreme Court”) rejected an appeal by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the judgment.
On 19 August 2003 the District Court submitted the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance, but the judgment was not enforced.
On 19 September 2003 a judge of the Supreme Court rejected an application for supervisory review lodged by the Ministry of Finance.
On 16 October 2003 the Ministry of Finance re-introduced their application for supervisory review before the Presidium of the Supreme Court.
On 15 July 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 19 May 2003, as upheld on 16 June 2003, and dismissed the applicant’s claim in full. In so deciding, the Presidium noted that the courts had failed to take into account the provisions of the 2001 State Programme for Redemption of Promissory Notes which had extended the period of redemption until 31 December 2004. In the Presidium’s assessment, that failure amounted to a substantial violation of the material law warranting re-consideration of the case.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6, 13 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour and its subsequent quashing by way of supervisory review.

THE LAW
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 observes that, by letter of 9 July 2007, the Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicant who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 7 September 2007. No response was received from the applicant.
By letters of 8 October 2007 and 26 March 2008 sent by registered mail, the applicant was advised that the period allowed for submission of his comments had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court would 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. No response has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be considered as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. It considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of his complaints (Article 37 § 1 in fine). In of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Søren Christos 
	Registrar	President