FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4384/02
by Svetlana Nikolayevna KALABINA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 December 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 December 2001,
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, Mrs Svetlana Nikolayevna Kalabina, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lives in the village of Kharitonovka in the Bryansk Region. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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.
The applicant’s husband, a military officer, was killed while on duty. On 3 December 1998 the applicant sued the military unit, claiming inter alia a lump sum allowance.
Several times in 1998-2002 and then 2003 the case was re-assigned to different judges within the Proletarskiy District Court of Tver. On two occasions (on 12 March 1999 and then on 25 December 2001) the applicant revised her statement of claims and apparently submitted a new claim. On 22 February 2002 the district court declined jurisdiction in favour of the Bryansk Regional Court. On 14 June 2002 the the Presidium of the Tver Regional Court ordered that the Proletarskiy District Court of Tver had jurisdiction in the case. On 11 October 2002 the Proletarskiy District Court of Tver rejected the applicant’s claims. This judgment was reversed in part by the Tver Regional Court on 17 December 2002.
On 18 December 2003 the Proletarskiy District Court of Tver granted the applicant’s claims in part.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings in her civil case had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. She also complained under Article 13 that she had no effective remedy against the excessive length of proceedings.
THE LAW
On 5 September 2005 the Court communicated the case 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 case on 13 January 2006.
By letter of 18 January 2006 the Registry of the Court requested the applicant to submit, by 22 March 2006, her comments on the Government’s observations.
In view of the absence of the applicant’s reply, by letter of 24 April 2006, sent by registered mail, the Registry informed the applicant that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 22 March 2006, and that no extension of the time-limit had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provides that the Court can strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that an applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
The applicant did not reply to the letter of 24 April 2006.
The Court notes that on 13 September 2005 the applicant was informed that notice of the application had been given to the respondent Government. The Court also notes that despite the Registry’s letter of 24 April 2006, the applicant has not submitted her comments to the Government’s observations, nor has she made any other submissions to the Court after communication of the case.
With reference to Article 37 §§ 1(a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the case should be struck out of its list of cases. The Court finds no particular reasons concerning respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, which would require further examination of the present application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy