by Lidiya LUNINA
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25 June 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 November 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Ms Lidiya Sergeyevna Lunina, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Voronezh. The respondent Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 15 May 2002 the applicant brought an action against her former employer for reinstatement in the job. The case was considered four times by domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction.
The final decision on the matter was rendered by the Tsentralniy District Court of Voronezh on 12 February 2007. The court granted the applicant’s claim and awarded her RUB 71,783.00 in lost earnings. It appears that the judgment came into effect and was enforced.
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that she did not receive compensation for her lost earnings. She complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings were unreasonably long. Finally, she complained under Article 13 of the Convention that she could not effectively protect her labour rights.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court observes that, by letter of 2 October 2008, the Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicant who was requested to submit observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 4 December 2008. No response was received from the applicant.
By letter of 23 March 2009 sent by registered mail, the applicant was advised that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. Her attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court would 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 2 April 2009 the applicant was notified by the post office of the arrival of the said letter. Following the applicant’s failure to retrieve the letter, on 4 May 2009 the post office returned the letter to the Court.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be considered as no longer wishing to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court further considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of her complaints (Article 37 § 1 in fine). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.