CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 31 mai 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 } .s8BA86F1C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s2FB2CBF3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:1pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s28145EF9 { width:182.27pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 69732/14 Yekaterina Vladimirovna SMYSHNIKOVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 31 May 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 October 2014, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Yekaterina Vladimirovna Smyshnikova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant lived with D.N. in an extramarital relationship. On 8 August 2006 the applicant gave birth to their daughter, S. On an unspecified date the couple settled in Moscow. On an unspecified date the applicant and D.N. separated. Between September 2009 and May 2012 S. lived with the applicant in Moscow and attended a kindergarten there. In May 2012 D.N. took S. to his parents in Kovdor, Murmansk Region, for summer vacations, and did not return her back to Moscow. The applicant applied to the police, the prosecutor’s office, the Kovdorskiy District childcare authority and the Ombudsman for Children in the Murmansk Region seeking the child’s return, without success. In November 2013 the applicant and D.N. both applied to the Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow (the District Court) for a residence order in respect of their daughter. On 17 March 2014 the District Court granted the applicant a residence order in respect of S. The judgment became final on 24 June 2014. On 31 July 2014 enforcement proceedings were instituted. However, the judgment of 17 March 2014 remained unenforced. The applicant’s complaint concerning the failure of the domestic authorities to secure the enforcement of the judgment of 17   March 2014 was communicated to the Government under Article 8 of the Convention. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The Government informed the Court, in particular, that in December 2014 the applicant and D.N. had decided to reunite, that they now live together with the child in Moscow, and that at the request of the applicant on 18   December 2014 the enforcement proceedings had therefore been discontinued. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 29 February 2016, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 8 December 2015 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s 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 applicant received this letter on 26   March 2016. However, no response has been received. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, 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. 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 23 June 2016. Stephen Phillips   Helena Jäderblom   Registrar   President