FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24558/03
by Irina Petrovna BAZHENOVA and Others
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 May 2003,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants named below are Russian nationals. They live in Velikie Luki. The respondent Government are represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, 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.
The applicants are educators at municipal kindergarten no. 16 in Velikie Luki. By virtue of section 55 § 8 of the Education Act, they were entitled to a monthly allowance for purchase of books and magazines which had not been paid to them from 1996 to 1999.
The applicants applied to a court seeking recovery of the unpaid allowance and compensation for the damage sustained because of the delay in paying the allowance.
On 20 November 2002 the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 35 of Velikie Luki in the Pskov Region granted the applicants’ claim for the unpaid allowance and held that the Education Directorate of the Velikie Luki Town Council should reimburse them the following amounts:
•	3,724.02 Russian roubles (“RUB”) to Mrs Irina Petrovna Bazhenova,
•	RUB 3,711.03 to Mrs Natalya Ivanovna Burmistrova,
•	RUB 3,005.64 to Mrs Yelena Vladimirovna Bogdanova,
•	RUB 3,005.64 to Mrs Yelena Yevgenyevna Ignatyeva,
•	RUB 2,416.15 to Mrs Nadezhda Nikolayevna Pankova,
•	RUB 3,731.58 to Mrs Nina Alekseyevna Kuznetsova,
•	RUB 3,751.99 to Mrs Irina Vasilyevna Kuznetsova,
•	RUB 3,722.14 to Mrs Galina Aleksandrovna Klukina,
•	RUB 2,337.72 to Mrs Irina Aleksandrovna Ivanova (Tkacheva),
•	RUB 3,718.99 to Mrs Lyubov Anatolyevna Kuznetsova,
•	RUB 3,719.22 to Mrs Lyudmila Aleksandrovna Lukyanskaya,
•	RUB 3,738.19 to Mrs Yelena Vasilyevna Shnitova, and
•	RUB 3,205.05 to Mrs Irina Aleksandrovna Ivanova.
The Justice of the Peace dismissed the applicants’ claim for compensation for delayed payments.
In April 2004 the respondent authority enforced the judgment in full.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 about prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 20 November 2002.
The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the courts refused to award them compensation for delayed payments.
THE LAW
On 12 November 2007 the President of the Chamber decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.
By identically worded letters dated 25-28 December 2007 all the applicants informed the Court that the judgment of 20 November 2002 in their favour had been fully enforced in April 2004 and that they did not intend to pursue their application before the Court.
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.”
It follows from the applicants’ letters dated 25-28 December 2007 that they do not intend to pursue their application.
The Court notes that all the applicants no longer wish to pursue their application (cf. Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). The Court further notes that the judgment in their favour has already been enforced. 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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