FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 77788/01
by Nina Mikhaylovna POSS
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 April 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsF. Tulkens,
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 21 September 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Nina Mikhaylovna Poss, is a Russian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Russia. The respondent Government are represented by Mr Pavel 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 an unspecified date, the applicant instituted civil proceedings against her former employer seeking reinstatement in her post, unpaid salary and compensation.
On 5 April 2000 the Central District Court of Komsomolsk-on-Amur (Центральный районный суд г. Комсомольск-на-Амуре Хабаровского края) found in the applicant's favour.
On 15 June 2000 the Khabarovsk Regional Court (Хабаровский краевой суд) quashed this judgment on appeal and remitted the case.
On 30 November 2000 the Central District Court of Komsomolsk-on-Amur rejected all the applicant's claims, upon new examination.
On 15 December 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal.
On 1 February 2001 the Khabarovsk Regional Court held a hearing on the applicant's appeal in her absence. The respondent's representative was present and pleaded its case. The Regional Court decided to dismiss the applicant's appeal.
In February-March 2001 the applicant addressed letters to both the District and Regional Courts inquiring about the destiny of her appeal.
It appears that a copy of the Regional Court's judgment of 1 February 2001 was served on the applicant only on 23 March 2001.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 that, upon the new examination of the case, the Central District Court was biased and could not be considered as a “tribunal established by law”.
She further complains under Article 6 that the Khabarovsk Regional Court did not have the right to examine her appeal against the judgment of 30 November 2000 in her absence.
THE LAW
On 3 June 2004 the application was communicated to the respondent Government. On 20 September 2004 the Government's observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit her written observations in reply by 25 November 2004. She failed to do so, despite a reminder and warning from the Registry, by registered post, that such failure might result in the striking out of her application.
The Court infers from the applicant's continued silence that she 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 the case 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 strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy