[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Lyubov Viktorovna PIMENOVA and Others v Russia - 24521/04 [2011] ECHR 629 (22 March 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/629.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 629

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 24521/04 and other applications
Lyubov Viktorovna PIMENOVA and Others
against Russia
(see appendix for other applications)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 March 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
George Nicolaou,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque, judges,

and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applications were lodged by Ms Lyubov Viktorovna Pimenova and twenty-one other Russian nationals, whose names and years of birth are tabulated below. The respective dates of introduction of the applications are also shown in the table. Ms Skakalskaya was represented by Mr Y. Sapozhnikov, a lawyer practising in Osinniki. Mr Abalov was represented by Mr I. Savelyev, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court.

The applicants complained about delayed enforcement of binding civil judgments given in their favour at the domestic level (for details see Appendix).

The applicants’ complaints concerning the non-enforcement were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants or their respective representatives, who were, invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

By letters sent by registered post (for date see Appendix), the applicants or their respective representatives were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired (for date see Appendix) and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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. However, no response has been received by the Court to date.

THE LAW

Given that the applications at hand concern similar sets of facts, the Court decides to join them pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

The Court considers that, in the above circumstances, 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 def ined 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 join the applications;

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

Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić
Registrar President

APPENDIX