FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32139/02
by Lidiya Stepanovna SEVERINOVA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Snejana Botoucharova,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Rait Maruste,
Javier Borrego Borrego,
Renate Jaeger, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 July 2001,
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, Mrs Lidiya Stepanovna Severinova, was born in 1933 and lived in the town of Makeyevka, Donetsk region. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In March 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against her former employer, the “Uglerestrukturizatsiya” State-owned company requesting compensation for health damage, social benefits arrears and compensation for moral damage.
On 30 June 2000 the Chervonogvardiysky District Court of Makiyivka allowed the applicant’s claim in part. This judgment was not appealed against and became final.
In January 2001 the applicant received one monthly payment.
On 11 April 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court examined the extraordinary review request (the protest) lodged by its President upon the motion of the defendant and quashed the judgment of 30 June 2000. The case was remitted to the Chervonogvardiysky District Court for a fresh consideration.
By letter of 17 April 2001 the Deputy President of the Donetsk Regional Court informed the applicant that her request for an extraordinary review of the judgment of 30 June 2000 was unsubstantiated as the said judgment was lawful.
In June 2001 the applicant introduced an appeal under the new cassation procedure against the Donetsk Regional Court’s decision of 11 April 2001. On 22 October 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal.
On 10 October 2003 the Chervonogvardiysky District Court left the applicant’s claims without consideration as she had failed twice to appear before the court. The court mentioned that the applicant could submit the same claims anew. The applicant neither appealed against this ruling, nor re-lodged her claim.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the unfairness, outcome and the length of proceedings in her case. In particular, she complained that the final judgment given in her favour had been unlawfully quashed.
THE LAW
By letter dated 6 June 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 18 July 2007.
By letters dated 20 September and 7 November 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. However, the letter of 7 November 2007 returned post-marked that the applicant died. The Court notes that no heirs have made themselves known, expressing a wish to pursue the application.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that there is no one who intends to pursue 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 examination of this application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously.
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy