[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Anatolyevich VOROPAYEV and Others v Russia - 4047/05 [2012] ECHR 777 (10 April 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/777.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 777

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

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 4047/05
Sergey Anatolyevich VOROPAYEV and Others against Russia
and 18 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 April 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Julia Laffranque, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated in the appendix to this decision. Mr Makarevich is represented by Mr V.V. Mestyashov, a lawyer practising in Novosibirsk. Mr Glukhov is represented by Mr O.M. Morar, a lawyer practising in Blagoveshchensk, Amur Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants complained under Article 6 and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the authorities’ failure to enforce a court judgment in their favour in due time, the length of the proceedings in their criminal or civil cases, or quashing of the court judgments in their favour in supervisory review. Some of the applicants also raised grievances under other provisions of the Convention.

On various dates the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicants’ complaints.

THE LAW

The Court decides to consider the applications in a single decision.

By letters of various dates the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants, who were requested to submit any observations together with their claims for just satisfaction or, in the case of the applications concerning well-established case-law, solely their claims for just satisfaction.

Following their failure to reply by the time-limit set by the Court, the applicants were notified by letters sent by registered post that the period allowed for submission of their observations and/or claims for just satisfaction had expired 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 applicants do not intend to pursue the applications. As evidenced by the postal receipts, most of the applicants received these letters. However, no response from the applicants has followed. The letters sent to Mr Glukhov’s representative, Mr Litvinov, Ms Koval and Ms Trukhanova returned to the Court having failed to be claimed by the applicants. The Court has not received any information from the above four applicants in any other way.

The Court considers that, in these 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 defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the cases.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases 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.

André Wampach Peer Lorenzen
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX