 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Sergey Viktorovich MATYUSHKIN v Russia - 32399/04 [2010] ECHR 1380 (2 September 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1380.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1380 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
32399/04
by Sergey Viktorovich MATYUSHKIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 2 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos
Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens, judges,
and
Søren Nielsen, Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 July 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Sergey Viktorovich Matyushkin, a Russian national who was born in 1956 and lived in Pugachev. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
Relying on Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention the applicant complained about an insufficient amount of social benefit payments from the domestic authorities and about non-enforcement of a final judgment in his favour. He further complained under Article 8 about the failure of the domestic authorities to help him repair his house and install gas piping there. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 13 about the absence of effective domestic remedies.
On 4 February 2008 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, in which they informed the Court that the applicant had died on 28 June 2005 and his heirs did not intend to continue the proceedings before the Court. Furthermore, one of the heirs, Mr Ustimenko, had received the deceased applicant's judgment debt. The Government referred to the Mr Ustimenko's written request to discontinue the proceedings before the Court.
On 19 February 2008 the observations were forwarded to Mr Ustimenko, who was invited to submit his observations in reply, by 1 April 2008.
By letter dated 9 July 2008, sent by registered post, Mr Ustimenko was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 1 April 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. His 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 he does not intend to pursue the application. However, no response has been received.
On 7 June 2010 the Government asked the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant's heir does not wish to pursue the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.
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 Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
