FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26973/02
by Mariya KOSTRYUKOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 January 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 June 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Mariya Ivanovna Kostryukova, is a Russian national who was born in 1925 and lives in Moscow. 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.
A. Domestic proceedings
On 15 November 2001 Mr Antonenko was registered as a candidate in the elections to the Moscow City Duma.
On 14 December 2001 a private person K. lodged a complaint with a court, seeking to cancel the registration of Mr Antonenko because he had allegedly omitted to enter a part of his income on his property declaration and because he had used his official position for electoral campaigning.
At 10.40 p.m. on 15 December 2001 the Moscow City Court delivered the judgment, by which Mr Antonenko’s registration was cancelled.
At 7.45 a.m. on the following day (the voting day) district electoral commission no. 5 issued the decision to strike Mr Antonenko’s name out of the list of candidates. While the striking-out of his name on the information stand was carried out without further delay, the manual correction of the voting ballots was not completed until 8.30 a.m.
The applicant came to the polling station at 8.25 p.m. After she learnt of Mr Antonenko’s withdrawal from the election and being unable to obtain any information about the reasons for cancellation of his registration, she left the polling station taking the ballot with her.
The applicant and other private persons in a similar situation complained to a court about a violation of their right to vote.
On 29 March 2002 the Moscow City Court dismissed the complaint. It found that the registration of Mr Antonenko had been cancelled by a judicial decision on the day preceding the voting day and the district electoral commission had implemented it. In the court’s assessment, the twenty-seven electors who had left the polling station without casting a vote had thereby exercised their active voting right.
On 17 May 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 29 March 2002 on appeal.
B. Proceedings before the Court
On 21 January 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 16 May 2005 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit written observations in reply by 6 July 2005.
On 13 June 2005 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of her observations in reply remained unaffected.
As the applicant’s observations in reply had not been received by 6 July 2005, on 21 July 2005 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application.
The applicant did not reply.
THE LAW
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court notes that the applicant was advised that she was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. No response has been received to date and the applicant did not inform the Court of her new contact details if she had moved. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, it considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case (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