FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43721/07
by Vladimir Semenovich ZAGORULKIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 August 2007,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Semenovich Zagorulkin, was a Russian national who was born in 1949 and died in 2008. He lived in Belaya Kalitva, the Rostov Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr G. Matuyshkin, their Representative at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
By two separate judgments dated 13 June 2006 (final on 26 June 2006) and 26 February 2007 (final on 12 March 2007) the Belaya Kalitva Town Court of the Rostov Region ordered a local welfare authority to pay the applicant arrears and monthly payments in respect of compensation for health damage. The judgments were enforced on 29 November 2007 and 3 December 2007 respectively.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about delayed execution of the judgments in his favour.
THE LAW
On 15 March 2010 the Government submitted to the Registry their comments on the admissibility of the application, in which they informed the Court that the applicant had died on 16 May 2008.
By letter dated 22 March 2010, sent by registered post, the Government's observations were sent to the late applicant's relatives' address. The addressees were requested to indicate whether any relative or heir of the applicant wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court. The Court noted that the failure to respond to that letter might result in the strike-out of the application. No reply followed.
The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant has died and no member of his family or heir has expressed a wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in her stead.
The Court considers with reference to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention that, in these circumstances, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of 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 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.
André WampachChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy