by Lyudmila Pavlovna CHAYKOVSKAYA
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 June 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 December 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Ms Lyudmila Pavlovna Chaykovskaya, is a Russian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Krasnodar. She is represented before the Court by Mr V.B. Gorlopanov, a lawyer practising in Krasnodar. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 of the Convention about the domestic courts’ failure to duly notify her of the appeal hearing of her civil case. She further complained under Articles 6 and 13 of excessive length of the civil proceedings and the lack of effective domestic remedy in this respect and under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 of violation of her property rights.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 concerning the domestic court’s alleged failure to duly notify her of the appeal hearing was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative who was invited to submit observations in reply. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letters dated 5 February and 20 April 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant and her representative were notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 24 November 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. Their 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.
Søren Nielsen Nina