CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 février 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. 8810/09 Valentina Nikolayevna BOROZENTSEVA against Russia lodged on 9 January 2009 The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21   February 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 9 January 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Sochi, the Krasnodar Region. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3.     In 1988 the applicant married B. and together they moved in to reside on the estate owned by B.’s father. The applicant was registered by the authorities as a resident of that estate. It does not appear that she was a tenant or had any formalised relations with B.’s father concerning her stay on the estate. 4.     In 2007 B. died. Some time later, the applicant’s stepdaughter moved in to reside on the estate along with a minor son, having bought one fifth of the estate from B.’s father. 5.     In 2008 the applicant’s stepdaughter brought a claim against the applicant, seeking her eviction. 6.     In response, the applicant brought a counter claim against the stepdaughter and B.’s father, asking the court to recognise her right to reside on the estate as “a member of the family”. 7.     By a first instance judgment dated 24 October 2008 the Central Court of the town of Sochi granted the claim of the stepdaughter and rejected the applicant’s demands. 8.     The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 4 December 2008. The court extended the applicant’s stay in the house until 1 April 2009. 9.     The court decisions in the applicant’s case were reviewed and upheld by way of supervisory review by a judge of the Regional Court on 8 April 2009 and by a judge of the Supreme Court on 14 July 2009. 10.     It appears from the case file that on 7 May 2009, once in receipt of the respective enforcement writs from the courts, the bailiffs evicted the applicant. THE LAW 11.     On 18 January 2011 the President of the Court gave notice of the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 13 May 2011. 12.     By letter of 18 May 2011 the applicant was requested to submit, by 21   July 2011, her comments on the Government’s observations. 13.     As the applicant had not replied, by letter of 12 October 2011, sent by registered mail, her attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court can strike a case out of its list where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that an applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 14.     The Court notes that, despite the Court’s letters of 18 May 2011 and 12   October 2011, the applicant has not submitted her observations in reply to those of the Government. Nor has he made any other submissions to the Court. 15.     Against this background, the Court considers that 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. 16.     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