Přehled
Rozhodnutí
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14011/02
by Mariam Narchaovna GAZAYEVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 October 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 April 2001,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Mariam Narchaovna Gazayeva (Marianna Keil), is a German national who was born in 1922 and lives in Mannheim. She was represented before the Court by Mr H. Metzger, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
In accordance with Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, the Registrar informed the German Government of their right to submit written comments. They did not indicate that they wished to exercise their right.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1930 Russian authorities subjected the applicant’s father to political repression and confiscation of property, which comprised three houses, jewellery and ceramic shops, etc. In 1999 the applicant’s father was rehabilitated.
In 1999 the applicant sued the Treasury of the Russian Federation in tort. She claimed compensation for the damage sustained as a result of unlawful repression and confiscation of property.
On 12 May 2000 the Nalchik Town Court ordered:
“- ... to return to the plaintiff, Ms Mariam Narchaovna Keil (Gazayeva), title to the ceramic shop, located in the district of Volniy Aul of the town of Nalchik;
- ... to return her title to the house located in the former village “Razdolye”...;
-... to provide Ms Keil (Gazayeva), in compensation for three houses and a jewellery shop confiscated by way of repression, with three land plots within the Nalchik territory for construction of houses and settling in of her large family;
- ... to provide Ms Keil (Gazayeva) with an interest-free loan for constructing of housing.”
The judgment of 12 May 2000 was not appealed against and became final.
On 8 February 2001 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic, by way of a supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 12 May 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh examination by a different bench.
On 27 September 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judgment of 8 February 2001 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic.
On 22 November 2001 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic, in the course of the new supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 12 May 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the Nalchik Town Court.
On 21 December 2001 the Nalchik Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the final judgment of 12 May 2000 had been quashed by way of supervisory-review proceedings, that she did not have any effective remedy against that violation, and that as a result of the quashing she could not receive the property and housing due to her.
THE LAW
On 5 September 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 2 December 2005 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received.
On 7 December 2005 the Court asked the applicant to submit written observations in reply by 8 February 2006.
On 25 January 2006 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant’s lawyer, Mr H. Metzger. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 8 February 2006, on 15 March 2006 the applicant and her lawyer were advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application.
On 5 April 2006 the applicant’s lawyer asked the Court to extend the time-limit for submission of the applicant’s observations until 15 May 2006. He reasoned that he needed additional time to translate the Government’s observations into French and to obtain certain additional documents from the applicant.
The Court extended the time-limit as requested.
On 15 May 2006 the applicant’s lawyer again asked the Court to extend the time-limit for submission of the applicant’s observations until 20 May 2006. The request was granted, however, the applicant’s observations were not forwarded to the Court.
On 7 July 2006 the applicant’s lawyer sent a letter apologising for the delay and asking for a further extension until the beginning of September 2006. The representative was informed in a letter dated 20 July 2006 that, since the time-limit had long since expired, and since he had offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay in responding, the requested extension had not been granted. He was also informed, in the same letter, that if any further material were in fact to be submitted on behalf of the applicant, it would be for the President of the Chamber to decide whether it should be taken into account in its next examination of the case. No response was received to this letter and no further requests for extension of the time-limit were made either by the applicant or her lawyer.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court notes that the applicant was requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. She and her lawyer subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of her failure to submit the observations. On two occasions the Court extended the time-limit for submission of the applicant’s observations, however, no observations were received within the extended period.
The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application (see, for similar reasoning, Garland and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28120/95, 2 February 1999). Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.
In these circumstances it considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago Quesada Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President