CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 décembre 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 } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4A0CEAF8 { width:194.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 1292/05 by Lyubov Nikolayevna KARPENKO against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10   December 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 10 December 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Lyubov Nikolayevna Karpenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Udachnyy, the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. By the judgment of the Mirnyy Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of 25 July 2003, as upheld on 15 September 2003 by the Supreme Court of the Sakha Republic, the applicant was awarded 138,967 Russian roubles to be paid by the Government. On 7 October 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha Republic quashed the judgment of 25 July 2003 and the appeal decision of 15 September 2003 on the ground of a violation of the substantive law and delivered a new judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s claim in full COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 about quashing of a final judgment in the applicant’s favour on supervisory review. THE LAW By letter dated 4 September 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 6 November 2008. By letter dated 16 February 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 6 November 2008 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 applicant received this letter on 28 March 2009. However, no response has been received. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President