by Marina Vladimirovna PIROGOVA
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 December 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić, President,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 April 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Ms Marina Vladimirovna Pirogova, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Tynda, the Amur Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the 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 17 November 2003 the Tyndinskiy District Court of the Amur Region awarded the applicant RUB 78,330.07 to be paid by the State Treasury. The judgment became final ten days later.
On 1 November 2004 the Presidium of the Amur Regional Court, upon the defendant’s request, quashed the judgment of 17 November 2003 on supervisory review on the ground of incorrect application of the domestic law by the district court and rejected the applicant’s claims.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the quashing of the judgment of 17 November 2003 by way of supervisory review.
By letter dated 17 July 2008 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 18 September 2008.
By letter dated 20 October 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 18 September 2008 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. As it appears from the acknowledgment-of-receipt card which returned to the Court, the applicant received this letter on 10 November 2008. 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 Nina Vajić