FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5139/02
by Pulan KURBANOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 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 present application was originally brought by Ms Pulan Kurbanova, born in 1929. In a letter of 30 July 2006 the applicant's son, Mr Alkhazur Kurbanov, informed the Court that the applicant had died on 20 May 2006. From Mr Kurbanov's submissions it could be understood that he intended to pursue the present application on the applicant's behalf. He is a Russian national who lives in the village of Gvardeyskoye, Chechnya. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former 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.
On 13 November 2001 the applicant issued civil proceedings against the Ministry of Defence, seeking damages for her property destroyed in December 1999 as a result of the hostilities in Chechnya. She enclosed a certificate from a local authority confirming that her possession had been destroyed.
By a decision of 19 November 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny (“the District Court”) declined to examine the applicant's action. It noted that in the absence of lay assessors on the territory of Chechnya, the Chechen courts only dealt with those cases that could be examined by a single judge. The court considered that the applicant's claim pertained to a category of disputes which should be examined by a judge, along with two lay assessors, rather than by a single judge, and invited her to apply to a court at the location of the defendant, in Moscow.
On 22 November 2001 the applicant appealed against the above decision to the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic.
On 3 and 13 December 2001 the applicant enquired about the developments in the proceedings. According to her, she received no reply to any of those queries.
In the applicant's submission, on 21 January 2002 she had received a letter of 4 January 2002 in which the District Court had informed her that the examination of her complaint by an appeal instance had been scheduled for 16 January 2002. The applicant furnished the Court with a copy of the letter in question and an envelope bearing a post mark of 20 January 2002.
According to her, Mr Alkhazur Kurbanov had visited an appeal court in person several days later, but court officials in an offensive way had refused to give him any explanations regarding the hearing, and therefore she had abandoned the proceedings. It does not appear that the applicant attempted to file a compensation claim in court in Moscow.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the first instance court had refused to examine her claim and that she had not been informed of the examination of her appeal in time, which had infringed her right of access to court. She further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about a violation of her property rights on account of the destruction of her possessions in December 1999 and her inability to receive any compensation in this respect. The applicant also relied on Article 13 of the Convention alleging lack of effective remedies in connection with the above violations.
THE LAW
By letter dated 6 February 2007 the Government's observations were sent to Mr Alkhazur Kurbanov, the applicant's heir, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 10 April 2007.
On 6 May 2007 the applicant's heir informed the Court that he wanted to withdraw the application since he was no longer interested in pursuing the proceedings before the Court. In a letter of 22 January 2008 the Court requested the applicant's heir to confirm his intention to withdraw the application and to state the reasons for the withdrawal. In reply, Mr Kurbanov reiterated that he no longer wished to pursue the application given that his complaint had been resolved at the domestic level.
The Court observes that the applicant's heir expressly stated that he no longer wished to pursue the present 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 continued examination of the case (see, by contrast, Karner v. Austria, judgment of 24 July 2003, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2003 - IX, § 28). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
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