CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 19 mai 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .sDC8E1F0A { width:193.11pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 25685/05 by Nina Fedorovna VOROBYEVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 May 2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 June 2005, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Nina Fedorovna Vorobyeva, was a Russian national who was born in 1935 and lived in Voronezh. She was represented before the Court by Mr A. Rashevskiy, a lawyer practising in Voronezh. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Ms   V. Milinchuk and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, both former Representatives 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 10 January 2001 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Voronezh upheld the applicant’s action against the Social Security Department of the Tsentralnyy District Council of Voronezh and awarded her 931.46 Russian roubles in pension arrears. The judgment entered into force ten days later. On 13 December 2005 it was executed in full. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto about prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 10 January 2001 in her favour. THE LAW On 28 February 2008 the application was communicated to the respondent Government. On 19 June 2008 the Government informed the Court that on 23 April 2008 the applicant had died. They enclosed a copy of the death certificate. By letters dated 1 July 2008 and 6 January 2009 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative who was requested to indicate whether any relative or heir of the applicant wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court. As it follows from the acknowledgment-of-receipt cards which returned to the Court, the representative had received both letters on 14 July 2008 and 16 January 2009 respectively. However, no response followed. The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant has died and no member of her family or heir has expressed a wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in her stead.   In these circumstances the Court concludes that it is not 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 view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President