SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33646/02
by Emilija ALEKSONIENĖ and Others
against Lithuania
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting
on 7 February 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrR. Türmen,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 August 2002,
Having regard to the communication of the case on 8 September 2005 and the applicants’ letter of 5 October 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS, COMPLAINT AND PROCEDURE
The first applicant, Mrs Emilija Aleksonienė, was born in 1924. The second applicant, Mrs Birutė Burbienė, was born in 1931. The third applicant, Mrs Janina Kirkauskienė, was born in 1922. The fourth applicant, Mrs Ona Plukienė, was born in 1916. The fifth applicant, Mrs Bronė Savickienė, was born in 1913. The sixth applicant, Mr Stasys Zakarackas, was born in 1918. The applicants are Lithuanian nationals living in Druskininkai, with the exception of the fifth applicant who lives in Vilnius.
The applicants are five sisters and a brother. They complained that a plot of 7.25 hectares of their late father’s land had not been returned to them, in breach of the domestic legislation on the restitution of property. They alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
The President of the Chamber decided to communicate the case to the respondent Government on 8 September 2005 (Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court).
On 5 October 2005 the applicants wrote a letter to the Court’s Registry, stating that the land had now been returned to them, and that they wished to withdraw the case. In support of their request, the applicants submitted copies of the domestic decisions attesting to their ownership of the land.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicants wish to withdraw the application on the ground that the matter has been resolved, and that they have no further claims against the Lithuanian authorities with regard to the restitution of their property rights.
The Court finds no general issue concerning the respect for Human Rights warranting the continued examination of the application.
The Court therefore grants the applicants’ request, and finds that the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be terminated and the case struck out of its list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. Dollé J.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy