FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 30803/05 and 10134/07
Nikolay Fedorovich KHODASEVICH against Russia
and Natalya Vasilyevna STRASHINSKAYA against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 June 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 15 July 2005 and 5 February 2007, respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are two Russian nationals, Mr Nikolay Fedorovich Khodasevich, who was born on 14 November 1944 and lives in Chelyabinsk, and Ms Natalya Vasilyevna Strashinskaya, who was born on 27 February 1952 and lives in Belogorsk, Amur Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
In both cases the applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments in their favour by way of supervisory review. The first applicant also referred to Article 13 of the Convention and to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
On 3 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 24 September 2010.
By letters of 1 October 2010, the applicants were invited to submit, by 3 December 2010, their comments on the Government’s observations, together with any claims for just satisfaction. No replies were received.
By letters of 1 February 2011, sent by registered mail, the applicants were informed that the time‑limit for submission of their observations or claims for just satisfaction had expired, and that no extension of time had been requested. 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.
André WampachLinos-Alexandre Sicilianos
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy