by Lyubov Tikhonovna BARANICHENKO
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 November 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Ms Lyubov Tikhonovna Baranichenko, was a Russian national who had been born in 1924 and lived in Volgograd. She died on 24 January 2007. Her sister, Ms Yevgeniya Tikhonovna Dolgova, expressed a wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court in her stead (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant” for the sake of convenience). The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court.
The applicant's complaint under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the destruction of her property during the hostilities in Chechnya in 1999 was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry's letter.
By letter dated 25 March 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was requested to submit her observations by 27 May 2010. 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. No response followed.
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.
André Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President