British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
Valentina Nikolayevna BOROZENTSEVA v Russia - 8810/09 [2012] ECHR 401 (21 February 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/401.html
Cite as:
[2012] ECHR 401
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8810/09
Valentina Nikolayevna BOROZENTSEVA
against
Russia
lodged on 9 January 2009
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on
21 February 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina
Vajić, President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia
Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre
Sicilianos,
Erik
Møse, judges,
and
Søren Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 9 January 2009,
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The
applicant is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in the
town of Sochi, the Krasnodar Region.
The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
In
1988 the applicant married B. and together they moved in to reside on
the estate owned by B.’s father. The applicant was registered
by the authorities as a resident of that estate. It does not appear
that she was a tenant or had any formalised relations with B.’s
father concerning her stay on the estate.
In
2007 B. died. Some time later, the applicant’s stepdaughter
moved in to reside on the estate along with a minor son, having
bought one fifth of the estate from B.’s father.
In
2008 the applicant’s stepdaughter brought a claim against the
applicant, seeking her eviction.
In
response, the applicant brought a counter claim against the
stepdaughter and B.’s father, asking the court to recognise her
right to reside on the estate as “a member of the family”.
By
a first instance judgment dated 24 October 2008 the Central Court of
the town of Sochi granted the claim of the stepdaughter and rejected
the applicant’s demands.
The
judgment was upheld on appeal by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 4
December 2008. The court extended the applicant’s stay in the
house until 1 April 2009.
The
court decisions in the applicant’s case were reviewed and
upheld by way of supervisory review by a judge of the Regional Court
on 8 April 2009 and by a judge of the Supreme Court on 14 July 2009.
It
appears from the case file that on 7 May 2009, once in receipt of the
respective enforcement writs from the courts, the bailiffs evicted
the applicant.
THE LAW
On 18 January 2011 the President of the Court gave
notice of the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54
§ 2 (c) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their
observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 13 May
2011.
By
letter of 18 May 2011 the applicant was requested to submit, by
21 July 2011, her comments on the Government’s
observations.
As
the applicant had not replied, by letter of 12 October 2011, sent by
registered mail, her attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a)
of the Convention, which provides that the Court can strike a case
out of its list where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
an applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
The
Court notes that, despite the Court’s letters of 18 May 2011
and 12 October 2011, the applicant has not submitted her
observations in reply to those of the Government. Nor has he made any
other submissions to the Court.
Against
this background, the Court considers that 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
