THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3429/06
Natalya Aleksandrovna KUVSHINOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 January 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 December 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Natalya Aleksandrovna Kuvshinova, is an Ukrainian national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Pervomaysk, Russia. She was represented before the Court by Mr S.P. Senko, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the inability to examine witnesses testifying against her.
The applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 10 August 2015, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 12 November 2014 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The letter was returned to the Court on 9 October 2015 as ‘not claimed by the addressee’.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her application, 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 case.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 February 2016.
Marialena TsirliHelena Jäderblom
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy