FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 593/06
by Konstantin Alekseyevich LASKIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 May 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Christos Rozakis,
Peer Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 November 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Konstantin Alekseyevich Laskin, was a Russian national who was born in 1977 and lived in Peresvet, Moscow Region. On 30 April 2006 he died. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
On 21 July 2004 an article by the applicant was published. A well‑known and influential banker and his bank were mentioned in the article.
The banker and the bank instituted defamation proceeding.
On 4 March 2005 the Federal Commercial Court for the Moscow Circuit by its final judgment found in the plaintiffs’ favour. The applicant was held obliged to pay the plaintiffs approximately EUR 2,750 in non‑pecuniary damages.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention about interference with his freedom of speech.
THE LAW
On 29 November 2010 the applicant’s mother informed the Court that the applicant died on 30 April 2006.
On 24 March 2011 the applicant’s mother informed the Court that she was not willing to pursue the application on behalf of her deceased son.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the 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.
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.
Søren NielsenNina Vajić
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy