CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 janvier 2010

.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 } .s4A0CEAF8 { width:194.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 21404/05 by Valentina Borisovna GUSHCHINA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21   January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 April 2005, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Valentina Borisovna Gushchina, is a Russian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Deputatskiy, the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, 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. By the judgment of 19 March 2003, as upheld on appeal on 23 April 2003, the Ust-Yanskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic granted the applicant's claim against the authorities and awarded her 91.500   Russian roubles (RUB) to be paid by the Government. On 14 October 2004, the Presidium of the Supreme Court set aside the judgment in the applicant's favour on supervisory review on the ground of misapplication of the domestic law by the lower courts and dismissed her claims. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 about the quashing of the final judgment by way of supervisory review. THE LAW By letter dated 28 May 2009 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 30 July 2009. By letter dated 2 October 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant's observations had expired on 30 July 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. On 30 October 2009 the letter was returned by the post office to the Court as the applicant had left her place of residence and her new address was unknown. The applicant failed to inform the Court of her change of address or otherwise inform the Court of her whereabouts. Neither did she submit any information after 13 June 2005, date of her latest letter to the Court. 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