CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 30 septembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFF4E7F0D { width:16.26pt; display:inline-block } .sC2D09584 { width:168.3pt; display:inline-block } .sAF7A583A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s576DFC5F { width:15.93pt; display:inline-block } .sAA5C5B93 { width:187.63pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 3552/08 by Rusiko Ilyinichna ABAYEVA and Others against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30   September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on the dates indicated below, Having regard to the observations submitted by the Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants in the present case are three Russian nationals, Ms   Rusiko   Ilyinichna Abayeva, Mr Mikhail Kharitonovich Abayev and Ms   Diana Nodariyeva Laliashvili, born in 1945, 1940 and 1982 respectively. They live in the Republic of North Ossetia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are 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. The applicants sued the State authorities for payment of compensation of damage caused by their relative's death during military service. On 3 May 2007 the Promyshlennyy District Court of Vladikavkaz of the Republic of North Ossetia ordered the authorities to make monetary payments in favour of each applicant. The judgment became binding on 3   July 2007 and was executed on 7 March 2008. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under various Convention Articles about the delayed enforcement of the judgments and submitted that their efforts to obtain the enforcement of the judgments by domestic means proved ineffective. THE LAW By letters of 22 September 2009 Mr Abayev and Ms Abayeva, and by letter of 15 October 2009 Ms Laliashvili informed the Court that they wanted to withdraw the applications. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court further notes that the domestic awards in favour of all applicants had been executed. 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the application out of the Court's list of cases.   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.   André Wampach   Christos Rozakis   Deputy Registrar   President