CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 septembre 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 } .sE6F1442 { width:204.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 11174/06 Tamara Bayevna TSUROVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26   September 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 February 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Tamara Bayevna Tsurova, a Russian national, was born in 1919 and lived in Voznesenovskaya, the Republic of Ingushetia. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented initially by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. The applicant complained about non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour imposing an obligation on domestic authorities to ensure the applicant’s return to her place of residence and about the lack of the effective remedies in respect of the non-enforcement complaint. On 24   November 2014 the Court decided to give notice of the above complaints to the Government. On 14   November 2016 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application and at the same time informed the Registry of the death of the applicant on 12   May 2011. On 22 May 2017 the Registry sent a letter to the applicant’s relatives requesting them to indicate to the Court whether there was an heir who wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court. No reply has been received by the Court. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention. 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 19 October 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President