European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> YUN Den Yi v Russia - 42286/06 [2011] ECHR 1468 (13 September 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1468.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1468
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
42286/06
by YUN Den Yi
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 September 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina
Vajić,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Peer
Lorenzen,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia
Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre
Sicilianos,
Erik
Møse,
judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 September 2006,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Yun Den Yi, is a Russian national of Korean descent who was born in 1935 and lives in Moscow. She is represented before the Court by Mr and Ms Aleshnya, lawyers practising in Moscow. The respondent Government are represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
On 28 February 2006 the applicant was charged with smuggling of foreign currency. The money was appended to the criminal case as physical evidence.
On 10 May 2006 the Golovinsky District Court of Moscow issued a decision to discontinue the criminal case against the applicant by virtue of an amnesty act. As regards the money, the District Court held that:
“Having discontinued the criminal case against Ms Yun Den Yi, the court considers it necessary to revert to the State the cash funds which have been illegally smuggled across the customs border of the Russian Federation: USD 13,150, CNY 2,625, and RUR 1,900 which were seized from Ms Yun Den Yi and joined to the criminal case as physical evidence, because that money was an instrument of the crime.”
On 26 June 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal.
Before the Court the applicant complained under Articles 6, 7, 13 and 17 of the Convention and also Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the Russian courts’ decision on confiscation of her money did not have a sufficiently clear and precise legal basis and that the confiscation measure was inappropriate in the circumstances where the criminal proceedings against her had been discontinued by virtue of a general amnesty act.
On 30 August 2010 the application was communicated under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Government.
On 12 November 2010 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the decisions of 10 May and 26 June 2006 by way of supervisory review and ordered the repayment of the confiscated amount to the applicant.
The Government submitted their observations on 17 January 2001 noting that the applicant had lost her victim status within the meaning of the Convention. The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representatives, who were invited to submit the observations on behalf of the applicant by 22 March 2011. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter of 11 May 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant and her representatives were notified that the period allowed for submission of the the observations had expired 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. The letter was delivered on 23 May 2011. However, no response followed.
THE LAW
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
Registrar President