European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 3516/04
by Irina KRAYUSHKINA and Marina KULYUKINA
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 February 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 December 2003,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Ms Irina Varlenovna Krayushkina and Ms Marina Lvovna Kulyukina, are Russian nationals who were born in 1956 and 1964 respectively and live in Moscow. They were represented before the Court by Ms V. Kuchumova, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr A. Savenkov, Acting 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.

The applicants were a notary and her assistant, respectively. On 3 November 1998 a search was carried out in the first applicant’s office, and certain documents were seized. On 6 November 1998 and 31 March 1999 the investigator initiated criminal proceedings against the first and second applicants, respectively. On unspecified dates, the applicants were charged with “abuse of power by notary” and forgery of documents. In May 1999 their criminal cases were joined. On 18 November 1999 the applicants were served with a bill of indictment. The case was listed for trial.

On 24 March 2003 the District Court convicted the first applicant of abuse of power by notary and forgery; the second applicant was convicted of complicity in those offences. On 19 June 2003 the City Court amended the judgment, annulling the second applicant’s conviction of complicity in the abuse of power for a lack of corpus delicti. On the first applicant’s request, on 31 March 2005 the Presidium of the City Court quashed her conviction of forgery.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 5 of the Convention that their liberty and freedom of movement had been limited from September 1999 to June 2003.

The applicants complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against them had exceeded the “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The applicants complained under Article 7 of the Convention that they had been wrongly convicted.

The first applicant (Ms Krayushkina) complained that the search in her office and seizure of certain documents had been in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

The second applicant (Ms Kulyukina) complained under Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention that she had not been promptly informed of the nature of the accusation against her.

THE LAW

By letter dated 24 July 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants’ representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 25 September 2008.

By letter dated 20 October 2008, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicants’ observations had expired on 25 September 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ representative’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 applicants’ representative received this letter on 30 October 2008. However, no response has been received.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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