FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7653/07
Galina Ivanovna BOLOGOVA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30 April 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ann Power-Forde,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 December 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Galina Ivanovna Bologova, was a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1946 and lived in Lisichansk.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kultchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant mainly complained of the prolonged non-enforcement of the domestic decisions in her favour. The complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were communicated to the Government for information.
By letter dated on 23 June 2011, the Government informed the Registry that the applicant had died. A copy was sent to the applicant’s address for any comment. No reply was received.
By letter sent on 15 November 2012 by registered post to the deceased applicant’s address preceded by the mention “To whom it may concern”, the reader was notified that no reply had been received to the Court’s previous correspondence and a new time-limit for any comment was given. The reader’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. The letter came back to the Court with the mention “Décédé” on the envelope.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant has died and that no heir has requested permission to pursue the application. In the circumstances it finds that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) 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 case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy