CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 juin 2018

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s94AD5A1 { width:202.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 53702/09 Oksana Stanislavovna TENDITNAYA against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   June 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 September 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Oksana Stanislavovna Tenditnaya, is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Arkhangelsk. The applicant’s complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”), who 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. On 15   February 2017 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit her own observations by 19   April 2017. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 8   June 2017, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 19   April 2017 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. On 6   November 2017 the applicant informed the Court of her new address. She also asked the Registry to re-send her the previous letter which she had allegedly lost. On 7   November 2017 the Registry re-sent the letter of 8 June   2017. No response followed from the applicant. By letter dated 10   January 2018, sent by registered post, the applicant was reminded that that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 21   November 2016 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was again 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. On 22   April 2018 the applicant submitted her observations. She explained that the delay had been caused by her moving house. THE LAW The Court has already considered a situation, in which the applicants, who wished to have their applications examined by the Court, had disregarded the requirements of the Court’s procedure and had failed to comply with the time-limits set for the submission of the observations (see Sotnikov v.   Russia (dec.), [Committee], no. 9911/08, 19   January 2016, and Kokovikhin v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no.   61525/14, 30   March 2017). Having regard to the fact that the applicants in the above mentioned cases had not submitted their observations, despite the warnings advising them that the Court might apply Article 37 § 1 in their respective cases, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the cases and decided to strike them out of the list of its cases. The situation in the instant case is no different. Even though the applicant wishes to have her application examined by the Court, she has disregarded the requirements of the proceedings before it. She did not comply with the time-limit set forth for the submission of her observations. Nor did she ask for its extension. She submitted her observations with a one-year delay. The Court discerns nothing in the applicant’s submissions to justify such omission on her part. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) 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 28 June 2018.   Fatoş Aracı   Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar   President