FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 71989/01
by Anna ZIMAKOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 October 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 March 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, Ms Anna Pavlovna Zimakova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1920 and lives in the town of Nelidovo. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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.
In 1999 the applicant sued her granddaughter and grandson for their eviction from their common flat.
On 11 June 1999 the Nelidovo Town Court of the Tver Region, in the final instance, dismissed the first action.
On 17 October 2000 the Tver Regional Court, in the final instance, dismissed the second action. The applicant did not attend because she received court summons after the appeal hearing had taken place.
THE LAW
On 7 February 2005 the Court received from the Government a copy of the declaration signed by the applicant and addressed to the European Court of Human Rights. Its relevant part, as translated from Russian, read as follows:
“[I] ask you not to examine my complaints concerning the proceedings before the Nelidovo Town Court and the Tver Regional Court in my action against my granddaughter... due to our reconciliation.”
The Government insisted that the applicant did not intend to pursue her application before the Court.
On 9 February 2005 the applicant was invited to submit her comments on the Government’s letter. No response followed. On 26 April and 27 June 2005 the Court repeated its request, sent by registered mail. The applicant did not reply.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court notes that the applicant signed the declaration by which she had requested the Court not to examine her application. The applicant was invited to submit her comments. No reply has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application. Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.
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 in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
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