CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG27
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 avril 2022
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0407DEC003061908
- Date
- 7 avril 2022
- Publication
- 7 avril 2022
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleStruck out of the list
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 30619/08 Yekaterina Grigoryevna SOKOLOVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 April 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Peeter Roosma,   Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28   March 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Yekaterina Grigoryevna Sokolova, was born in 1934. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention concerning the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). On 11 June 2020 the Court (Third Section) sitting as a Committee, delivered a decision in a group of cases, which included the current application (see Sokolova and others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 30619/08 and 5   others, 11 June 2020). In particular, it decided to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration submitted by the Government awarding the applicant the amount of 1,260 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. On 15 December 2020 the Government made a request to restore the application to the Court’s list of cases. They informed the Court of the applicant’s death on 5 August 2019. They further noted that the applicant’s daughter, Ms Litsova, had failed to inform the Court thereof in due time and that she had not manifested intention to join the proceedings in the applicant’s place. The Government withdrew the unilateral declaration. On 4 February 2021 the Court decided, under Rule 43 § 5 of the Rules of the Court, to disjoin the current application from the other applications decided by the Court in the case of Sokolova and Others and to restore it to the Court’s list of cases. The parties were notified of the said decision and Ms   Litsova was requested to inform the Court whether she wished to pursue the application in the late applicant’s stead. By letter dated 13 March 2021, Ms Litsova expressed her wish to pursue the application. She submitted copies of the birth certificate and of the judgment of the Leninskiy District Court of Kostroma of 1 March 2021 recognising her as Ms Sokolova’s legal heir. The Representative of the Russian Federation to the Court took part in the proceedings. The parties did not attend the hearing. Nor did they appeal against the judgment and on an unspecified date it became final. THE LAW Following the applicant’s death, the Court must address the question of Ms Litsova’s right to pursue the application originally lodged by the applicant. In this connection, the Court observes that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed in a timely manner a wish to pursue the application, without providing any explanation for such failure (see, among other authorities, Association of Victims of Romanian Judges and Others v.   Romania (revision), no. 47732/06, § 5-11, 22 March 2016). Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court sees no reason to depart form this approach in the present case. It takes into account that the applicant’s death occurred approximately ten months before the date of the Court’s decision and that the applicant’s daughter failed to provide any valid reason for not being able to inform the Court in a timely manner about it. The Court therefore concludes that Ms Litsova does not have a legitimate interest to pursue the proceedings before the Court in the applicant’s stead. Nor does it consider that respect for human rights require it to continue the examination of the case. In these circumstances the Court finds that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application and concludes pursuant to Article   37 § 1 (c) of the Convention that the case should be struck 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 5 May 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
- Formation
- 27
- Date
- 7 avril 2022
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0407DEC003061908
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral