THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15593/15
Raisa Aleksandrovna NOVAKOVSKAYA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 April 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 March 2015,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Raisa Aleksandrovna Novakovskaya, a Russian national, was born in 1937 and lived in Moscow. She was represented before the Court by Mr Yu. L. Yershov, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention about her total deprivation of legal capacity as a result of court proceedings in breach of the requirements of a fair trial. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about restrictions on her right to independently enjoy her possessions resulting from her incapacitation.
On 12 March 2018 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints detailed above.
On 29 June 2018 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. On the same date the Government informed the Court about the death of the applicant on 10 March 2017. The Government’s observations and letter with information about the applicant’s death were forwarded on 5 July 2018 to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit observations and comments in reply.
On 3 September 2018 the applicant’s representative submitted observations on the merits of the case. As for the death of the applicant, he informed the Court that he had no contact with any of the applicant’s heirs. However, the applicant’s representative claimed that a non-governmental organisation – “Centre for Assistance in Protection of Human Rights Citizens Commission of Human Rights”, assisting people with mental disorders – wished to support the case on behalf of the deceased applicant. The applicant’s representative submitted that the application concerned systemic issues of Russian law and practice of total deprivation of legal capacity without sufficient procedural safeguards. He therefore concluded that respect for human rights required the Court to continue with the examination of the case.
THE LAW
The practice of the Court is to strike applications out of the list when an applicant dies during the course of the proceedings and no heir or close relative wishes to pursue the case (see Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, § 57 with further references, ECHR 2012), save for in very exceptional cases where the Court finds that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires a continuation of the examination of the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 112, ECHR 2014, and Kondrulin v. Russia, no. 12987/15, § 31, 20 September 2016).
In the present case no heirs expressed the wish to pursue the application instead of the applicant.
The non-governmental organisation wishing to support the applicant’s case on her behalf has never represented her before the domestic authorities (see, for similar example, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos. 35653/12 and 66172/12, §§ 56-59, 28 June 2016; and by contrast, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania, §§ 110-11, and Kondrulin, § 32, both cited above; Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania – Helsinki Committee on behalf of Ionel Garcea v. Romania, no. 2959/11, § 44, 24 March 2015).
Furthermore, having regard to the fact that similar issues have been resolved in other cases before it (see, for example, Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, ECHR 2008, and Shakulina and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 24688/05 and 5 others, 5 June 2018) and that the relevant amendments in national laws addressing those issues have been adopted (see Shakulina and Others, cited above, §§ 37-41), the Court considers that respect for human rights does not require it to continue the examination of the case.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
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 20 May 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Olga ChernishovaDarian Pavli
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy