FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 3020/05 and 9928/05
Tatyana Petrovna BINTYUKOVA against Russia
and Olga Khamidulovna OVSYANNIKOVA against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 January 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 10 December 2004 and 14 February 2005, respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are two Russian nationals, Ms Tatyana Petrovna Bintyukova, who was born on 21 February 1962 and lives in Udachniy, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), and Ms Olga Khamidulovna Ovsyannikova, who was born on 8 July 1954 and lives in Mirnyy, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). Their applications were lodged with the Court on 10 December 2004 and 14 February 2005, respectively. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention about non‑enforcement and subsequent quashing by way of supervisory review of the final domestic court judgments granting the applicants’ claims for recover of monetary value of the State’s commodity vouchers for the purchase of Russian-made cars.
On 21 May 2010, the Court communicated the applicants’ complaints to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the cases on 10 September 2010.
By letters of 6 October 2010, the applicants were invited to submit, by 8 December 2010, their comments on the Government’s observations, together with any claims for just satisfaction. No replies were received to the Court’s letters.
In view of the absence of the applicants’ replies, by letters of 25 May 2011, sent by registered mail, the applicants were informed that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 8 December 2010, and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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 responses followed.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenNina Vajić
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy