CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 janvier 2012

.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 } .s299839C6 { width:212.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 32987/09 Irina Nikolayevna GREKOVA and Sergey Aleksandrovich GREKOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10   January 2012 as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13   April   2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Ms   Irina Nikolayevna Grekova and Mr   Sergey Aleksandrovich Grekov, are Russian nationals, who were born on 20   November 1960 and 26   September   1990, respectively, and live in Krasnoyarsk. Their application was lodged with the Court on 13   April   2009. They are represented before the Court by Mr T.V. Ispaykhanov, a lawyer practising in Krasnoyarsk. 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 applicants complained under Articles   6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of proceedings before commercial courts in connection with a dispute concerning consolidation of two ordinary shares in a Russian closed joint stock company ZAO “Polyus”, inherited by the applicants, and determination of their market value. On 30   April   2010, the Court communicated the applicants’ complaints to the respondent Government under Rule   54   §   2   (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 15   September   2010. By letter of 24   September   2010, the applicants were invited to submit, by 26   November   2010, their comments on the Government’s observations, together with any claims for just satisfaction. No reply was received to the Court’s letter. In view of the absence of the applicants’ reply, by letter of 12   January   2011, sent by registered mail, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations and claims for just satisfaction had expired on 26   November   2010, and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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. No response followed. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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   Nina Vajić   Registrar   President