European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Anna Petrovna SHLEPNEVA v Russia - 11287/04 [2009] ECHR 1894 (20 October 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1894.html
Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1894
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
11287/04
by Anna Petrovna SHLEPNEVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 October 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 9 March 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Anna Petrovna Shlepneva, is a Russian national who was born in 1928 and lives in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was involved as a defendant in civil proceedings concerning the division of a flat.
A. The initial set of proceedings
On 14 September 2001 the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow granted the claimant’s action in the applicant’s absence and delivered a default judgment.
According to the applicant, she received the summons to the hearing ten days after the hearing. According to the Government, she was duly informed about the hearing.
On 10 October 2001 the Timiryazevskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s request to quash the default judgment of 14 September 2001.
On 2 November 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 10 October 2001 on appeal.
On 24 January 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 14 September 2001 on appeal.
B. Supervisory review proceedings
Following the applicant’s request, on 15 August 2002 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgments of 14 September, 10 October and 2 November 2001 and 24 January 2002 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
On 26 September 2003 the Moscow City Court quashed the supervisory-review judgment of 15 August 2002 by way of supervisory review initiated by a third party to the case and upheld the judgments of 14 September 2001, 10 October and 2 November 2001 and 24 January 2002.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention that the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow deprived her of the right to an oral hearing and therefore interfered with her right to home. She also complained about the supervisory review judgment of 26 September 2003.
THE LAW
On 8 September 2008 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
By letter dated 19 January 2009 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 22 March 2009.
By letter dated 5 June 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 22 March 2009 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 17 June 2009. However, no response has been received.
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.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President