FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7314/03
by Svetlana Borisovna DUBROVA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 January 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 February 2003,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Svetlana Borisovna Dubrova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Donetsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
1. First set of proceedings
On 6 August 1987 the applicant and her brother Mr Y. instituted proceedings in the Voroshylovskyy District Court of Donetsk against Mr M. seeking annulment of a will in his favour and endorsement of their property title to a house.
On 31 December 1993 Mr Y. died and on 24 March 1993 his son Mr V. joined the proceedings as his successor.
Following several reconsiderations of the case, on 17 October 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal annulled the will and ruled that the house was the joint property of Mr V. and the applicant.
On 15 August 2002 the Supreme Court rejected appeals in cassation lodged by the applicant and Mr M.
2. Second set of proceedings
In August 2002 Mr V. instituted proceedings against the applicant in the Voroshylovksyy District Court of Donetsk, alleging that she had prevented him from moving into the house. The applicant laid a counterclaim claiming her title to the entire house.
On 1 March 2004 the court endorsed the right of Mr V. to move into the house and rejected the counterclaim.
On 14 June 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation, though she provided no information as to the outcome of her appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length, unfairness and outcome of the proceedings for property title over the house. She complained under Article 10 § 1 that the Supreme Court had refused to hear her oral submissions. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 of the outcome of those proceedings. The applicant complained that the domestic courts had infringed her rights under Articles 5 and 8 by ordering her to live in the same house with Mr V., who was dangerous and posed a real threat to her life and property.
THE LAW
Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 4 December 2006.
By letter of 24 January 2007, the applicant was invited to submit her observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 9 March 2007. However, the applicant failed to do so. Moreover, she failed to reply to a registered letter dated 25 August 2008, warning her of the possibility that her case might be struck out of the Court’s list.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 examination of this application to be continued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy