European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

CASE OF ABAYEVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
(Applications nos. 52196/08, 52200/08, 49671/08, 46657/08 and 53894/08)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 23 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 6 September, 9 September, 5 September, 1 September 2008 and on 27 August 2008, respectively,

Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above applications under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

1. The applications

The present applications concern hostilities in South Ossetia¹ which took place in August 2008 and by which the applicants claimed to have been affected.

The applicants were represented by Ms Z. Milyayeva (applications no. 52196/08 and no. 52200/08), Mr V. Saylaonov (applications no. 46657/08 and no. 49671/08) and Mr V. Baykulov (application no. 53894/08), lawyers practising in Vladikavkaz.

The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Meskhoradze. The Russian Government, who had made use of their right to intervene under Article 36 of the Convention, were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court.

Further relevant details concerning the applicants’ cases and the procedure before the Court are set out below.

(a) Application no. 52196/08

The applicant, Mrs Nora Georgiyevna Abayeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1941 and lived in Dmenis (South Ossetia) until August 2008. The applicant complained that her husband was killed and that her life had been at threat, that she had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, and that she had been discriminated against on the ground of her nationality. She invoked Articles 2, 3, 13 and 14 of the Convention.

(b) Application no. 52200/08

The application was lodged by Mr Eduard Taymurazovich Bogiyev, a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lived in Tskhinvali (South Ossetia) until August 2008. The applicant complained that his wife had been deprived of life, that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, that his right to respect for his private and family life had been breached, that his property had been damaged and that he had been discriminated against on the ground of his nationality. He relied on Articles 2, 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and also on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

(c) Application no. 49671/08

The application was lodged by Mr Mindiya Dzhondiyevich Bagushvili, a Russian national who was born in 1970. He lived in Khelchua (South Ossetia) until August 2008. He stayed in North Ossetia – Alania after that date. The applicant complained that his life had been at threat, that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, that he had been taken hostage, that his property had been damaged and that he had been discriminated against on the ground of his nationality. He relied on Articles 2, 3, 5, 13 and 14 of the Convention and also on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

(d) Application no. 46657/08

The applicant, Mr Semen Aleksandrovich Tedeyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1934 and lived in Tskhinvali (South Ossetia) until August 2008. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, that his property had been destroyed and that he had been discriminated against on the ground of his nationality. He relied on Articles 3, 13 and 14 of the Convention and also on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

(e) Application no. 53894/08

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Sergeyevich Konovalov, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and has permanent address in Marfino (Russian Federation). He complained under Article 2 of the Convention that his life had been at threat as a result of the military action of the Georgian armed forces.

2. Procedure before the Court

The applications were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letters.

By letters dated 14 October 2009, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representatives were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 16 September 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ representatives’ 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’ representatives received these letters on 26 October 2009 (Ms Z. Milyayeva and Mr V. Saylaonov), and on 18 December 2009 (Mr V. Baykulov).

By letters dated 4 December 2009, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representatives were notified of the third-party observations submitted by the Russian Government. The parties had until 8 January 2010 to file any written observations which they might wish to make in reply. The applicants’ representatives received these letters on 18 December 2009.

No response to the above letters has been received from the applicants.

THE LAW

Given the similarity of the position in the applications, the Court deems it appropriate to join them.

The Court considers that, in the circumstances describe above, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President