[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Galina Fyodorovna MAKSIMKINA v Russia - 5570/06 [2009] ECHR 895 (14 May 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/895.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 895

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

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 5570/06
by Galina Fyodorovna MAKSIMKINA
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 May 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,

and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 December 2005,

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 Galina Fyodorovna Maksimkina, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in the town of Saransk in the Mordoviya Republic. The respondent Government were initially represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mr G. Matyushkin.

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

On 25 August 1999 the applicant lodged an action against her neighbour, complaining that the latter had built a house and garage too close to her land plot. The applicant sought the removal of those buildings.

On 7 February 2007 the Leninskiy District Court of Saransk upheld the applicant’s action. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Mordoviya Republic on 10 April 2007.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the proceedings had been excessively long, that she had not had an effective remedy against the alleged violation, that the domestic courts had incorrectly assessed the facts and had erroneously applied the law and that there had been a threat to her life and health during all those years due to the violation of construction norms by her neighbour.

THE LAW

On 4 March 2008 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 30 June 2008 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 2 July 2008 the Court invited the applicant to submit her written observations in reply by 3 September 2008.

On 1 August 2008 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. 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 3 September 2008, on 7 November 2008 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit her observations might result in the strike-out of the application. No response followed.

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 subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of her failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application. 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.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President