FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10456/04
by Valentina KUZNETSOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
	Christos Rozakis, President,
	Nina Vajić,
	Anatoly Kovler,
	Elisabeth Steiner,
	Khanlar Hajiyev,
	Giorgio Malinverni,
	George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 January 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, Ms Valentina Vasilyevna Kuznetsova, is a Russian national who was born in 1956 and lives in the town of Pervouralsk in the Sverdlovsk Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former 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 judgment of 6 May 2003, the Pervouralsk Town Court of Sverdlovsk Region granted the applicant’s claim against the local office of the Pension Fund. On 3 July 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment.
On an unspecified date, the Pension Fund applied for a supervisory review of the above judgments. On 17 December 2003 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed them by way of supervisory review and dismissed the applicant’s claim.
COMPLAINTS
Referring to Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained that she had been discriminated against in relation to her right to early retirement.
She also complained that the judgment in her favour had been quashed by way of supervisory review.
THE LAW
By letter dated 19 July 2006 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 20 September 2006.
By letter dated 4 April 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 20 September 2006 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. No response has been received.
As no acknowledgment-of-receipt had returned to the Court, on 13 June 2007 another letter in the same terms was sent to the applicant. No response has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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 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