FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36199/02
by Liliya Gamirovna NIZAMIYEVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 2 March 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 July 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Liliya Gamirovna Nizamiyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in the village of Sharan in the Bashkortostan Republic of the Russian Federation. 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.
On 1 September 1998 the applicant sued her former husband for division of their jointly acquired flat.
On 21 January 2000 the applicant’s former husband counterclaimed and requested the court to order that the applicant should pay housing maintenance charges.
On 18 December 2002 the Bakalinskiy District Court awarded the applicant’s action in part.
On 10 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
On 1 March 2004 the Bakalinskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s action and allowed her former husband’s action in part.
On 3 August 2004 the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic upheld the judgment of 1 March 2004 on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the proceedings had been excessively long and unfair, that the courts had incorrectly assessed the facts and misinterpreted the domestic law.
THE LAW
On 4 May 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 23 August 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 27 October 2005.
On 22 September 2005 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 27 October 2005, on 12 December 2005 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application.
As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 12 December 2005 reached the applicant on 27 December 2005.
The applicant did not reply.
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 requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. She subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of her failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application. Furthermore, the Court 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.
In these circumstances it considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck 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.
Santiago QuesadaChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy