FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24699/06
Anastasiya Zakharivna TOROSH
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 21 October 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Helena Jäderblom,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 June 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Anastasiya Zakharivna Torosh, was a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1929 and lived in Rivne.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the prolonged non-enforcement of the domestic decisions in her favour.
The application was communicated on 12 May 2011 under the procedure covered by the pilot judgment Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009.
By letter dated 19 December 2011, the Government informed the Registry that the applicant had died. A copy of that letter was sent to the deceased applicant’s address on 27 January 2012 for comment. By letter dated 12 February 2012 and following correspondence, Mr V.S. Torosh, claiming to be the applicant’s son, expressed his will to pursue the application. However, he failed to submit any documents proving he was the applicant’s legal successor.
By letter dated 25 July 2014 sent by registered post, Mr V.S. Torosh was invited to submit copies of the documents proving his status of a lawful successor in title. On 14 August 2014 the letter returned to the Court undelivered with a remark “recipient died”.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant has died and that the Court has not been informed of any officially recognised heir to pursue the application. The Court further notes that the letter to Mr Torosh’s address (person claiming to be the applicant’s heir) returned undelivered. No other address of Mr Torosh was available to the Court. In these circumstances the Court finds that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. 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.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy