FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42094/05
ZAO VAVILON
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 October 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabeth Steiner, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 October 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, the joint stock company ZAO "Vavilon", have its registered seat in Murmansk, the Murmansk Region.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyuskin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. l about the non‑enforcement of the judgments in its favour, about the bailiffs’ inaction, about unsuccessful outcome of the proceedings against bailiffs and about the refusal to award it damages in these proceedings.
The above complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 18 April 2015, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 10 August 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The letter was returned to the Court as unclaimed.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 November 2015.
Anfré WampachElisabeth Steiner
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy