CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 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 } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s208721C6 { width:191.62pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7E0F3F91 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s3C2CFC22 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s684B547D { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s64189EA1 { text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 39331/04 Aleksandr Anatolyevich ASTAPCHIK and Irina Arkadyevna ASTAPCHIK against Russia and 5 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17   January 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated in the appendix to this decision. Mr Tarasov is represented by Mr   E. Farzaliyev, a lawyer practising in Vladikavkaz. 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 applicants complained under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 of the Convention of the authorities’ failure to enforce a court judgment in their favour in due time. Some of the applicants also raised grievances under other provisions of the Convention. On various dates the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicants’ complaints of non-enforcement. A.     Mr A.A. Tarasov, Mr A.A. Astapchik and Ms I.A. Astapchik (applications nos.   55444/07 and 39331/04) The Government’s submissions were forwarded to the applicants who were requested to provide their comments by 28 October 2010 and 9   December 2008, respectively. By registered letters of 27 May 2011 and 23   March 2009, respectively, the Registry warned the applicants that in absence of a response their applications would be struck out. To date the Registry has not received any reply from the applicants. B.     Mr A.S. Repkin and Mr A.V. Koval (applications nos. 13812/05 and 25856/07) The first applicant died on 25 January 2006. The second applicant died on 4 June 2010. By registered letters of 5 May 2010 and 17 October 2011, respectively, the Court forwarded the Government’s submissions to the applicants’ former addresses requesting to indicate a person wishing to pursue the proceedings in the applicants’ stead. To date the Registry has received no reply. C.     Mr V.A. Zavyalov and OOO Peterburgstroy (applications nos.   2062/05 and 27146/07) On 21 August 2008 the first applicant submitted a letter in which he expressed his desire to withdraw his application referring to the enforcement of the State’s debt in his favour. On 16 June 2009 the Court received a letter of similar content from the second applicant. THE LAW 1.     Given that the applications at hand raise identical issues, the Court decides to consider them in a single decision. 2.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicants have lost interest in their applications or do not have any heirs wishing to pursue the proceedings in their stead. 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 applications out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. André Wampach   Peer Lorenzen Deputy Registrar   President         APPENDIX   No Application No Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence   39331/04 31/08/2004 Aleksandr Anatolyevich ASTAPCHIK 09/11/1966   Irina Arkadyevna ASTAPCHIK 12/04/1969   2062/05 04/12/2004 Vladimir Andreyevich ZAVYALOV 05/10/1952   13812/05 19/02/2005 Anatoliy Sergeyevich REPKIN 13/07/1935   25856/07 10/05/2007 Aleksandr Vasilyevich KOVAL 08/05/1949   27146/07 16/06/2007 OOO PETERBURGSTROY     55444/07 27/10/2007 Andrey Aleksandrovich TARASOV 15/09/1971