FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 186/02
by Nikolay Mikhaylovich ZHARINOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 December 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, Mr Nikolay Mikhaylovich Zharinov, a Russian national, was born in 1952 and lived in the town of Zarechniy of the Penza Region. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the 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 26 January 1998 the applicant sued a private company in tort. The first hearing was listed for 20 February 1998. The applicant attended that hearing.
In 1998 the applicant complained to the president of the Zarechenskiy Town Court that he was unaware of the outcome of the proceedings. On 24 April 1998 he complained to the Penza Regional Court about the length of the proceedings in his case and inactivity of the Town Court.
According to the Government, on 10 September 1999 the Zarechenskiy Town Court fixed a hearing for 13 September 1999. The applicant failed to attend both that hearing and the hearing of 21 September 1999. On 1 October 1999 the Zarechenskiy Town Court discontinued the proceedings because the applicant had defaulted on several occasions. A copy of that decision was sent to the applicant on 10 October 1999.
In his application to the Court, the applicant claimed that he had not been informed of the developments in his case.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings in his case was unreasonably long and that he did not have an effective remedy because all of his complaints had been left without any response.
THE LAW
On 5 September 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 25 November 2005 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. The Government informed the Court that the applicant had died and asked to strike the application out of the list of cases.
The Court sent the Government’s observations to the applicant’s home address on 28 November 2005. As it follows from the acknowledgment of receipt which returned to the Court, the Court’s letter could not be delivered to the applicant because he had died.
The Court notes the applicant’s death. It also observes that no request has been submitted by the applicant’s heirs to pursue the examination of the case. In these circumstances the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of 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 examination of the application to be continued.
In these circumstances it considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy