CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 mars 2017

.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 } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s74FD211E { width:197.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 39881/14 OAO GORODSKAYA UPRAVLYAYUSHCHAYA KOMPANIYA ZAVOLZHSKOGO RAYONA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21   March 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15   May 2014, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, OAO Gorodskaya Upravlyayushchaya Kompaniya Zavolzhskogo Rayona, is an open joint stock company incorporated in Russia, based in Ulyanovsk. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained under Articles   6 and 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about non-enforcement of the judgment of 22   March 2013 given against a State unitary enterprise and the lack of an effective remedy. The applicant’s above complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant company, which was invited to submit observations in reply. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 13   July 2016, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 29   June 2016 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 4   August 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 the 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 13 April 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Luis López Guerra Deputy Registrar   President