CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 novembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s208721C6 { width:191.62pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 37509/09 by Olga ZOBKOVA against Azerbaijan The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15   November 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Julia Laffranque, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 June 2009, 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 Olga Zobkova, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Voronezh. She is represented before the Court by Mr   A.   Biryukov, a lawyer practising in Voronezh. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   Ç.   Asgarov. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant had ownership rights to a flat in Baku, Azerbaijan, on the basis of an ownership certificate issued by the competent domestic authority on 18   March 1994. However, the applicant’s flat was unlawfully occupied by internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Gubadli. In 1999 the applicant lodged a civil action before the domestic courts seeking the eviction of the IDPs from her flat. The applicant’s claim was granted by the domestic courts which ordered the eviction of the IDPs from the flat. The last and enforceable domestic decision was delivered on   1   February 1999 by the Sumgait City Court. However, at the time of the latest communication with the applicant, this judgment delivered in the applicant’s favour remained unenforced. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the judgment of 1   February 1999 breached her right to a fair trial and her property rights, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. THE LAW By letter dated 7 April 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of her just satisfaction claims had expired on 22 February 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’s 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. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 26 April 2011. However, no response has been received. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her application, 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 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 strike the application out of its list of cases. André Wampach   Peer Lorenzen Deputy Registrar   President