CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 février 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC95ED60 { width:188.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC049184D { width:99.22%; margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s4E211DDB { width:10.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s106D0DDE { width:60.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC034FEA { width:28.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sAE055729 { width:10.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE2D594D1 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s9F97C0FE { width:60.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFCD294F6 { width:28.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 36700/03 TORGOVYY DOM OAO VGP and Others against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2   February 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 November 2003, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants are three private companies. The list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the quashing on 27 May 2003 by the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia of a binding and enforceable judgment delivered in their favour on 16 November 2001 by the Commercial Court of the Tomsk Region and upheld on 22 July 2002 by the Appellate Collegium of the Commercial Court of the Tomsk Region. The applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. On 4   February 2009 the observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations by 8   April 2009. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. On 24   March 2009 in a telephone conversation with the Registry the representative of Torgovyy Dom OAO VGP informed the Court that the address of one of the applicants had been changed. However, he failed to provide its new address. By letter dated 17   September 2009, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 8   April 2009 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. The letters reached two of the applicants. They however did not respond to them. The letter sent to a third applicant returned as unclaimed. 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 3 March 2016.   Marialena Tsirli   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No. Applicant name Place of residence   TORGOVYY DOM OAO VGP Tomsk, Russia   OAO TOMSKGAZPROM Tomsk, Russia   OAO TOMSKOBLGAZ Tomsk, Russia