BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> OOO YEZHENEDELNAYA GAZETA INTER v Russia - 40562/05 [2011] ECHR 1534 (20 September 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1534.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1534 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
40562/05
by OOO YEZHENEDELNAYA GAZETA INTER
against
Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 September 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina
Vajić,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Peer
Lorenzen,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia
Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre
Sicilianos,
Erik
Møse,
judges,
and Søren Nielsen,
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 October 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by OOO Yezhenedelnaya Gazeta Inter, a publishing company with its registered office in Volgograd, Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant published a newspaper article criticizing the Chairman of the Volgograd Regional Parliament. The latter brought defamation proceedings against the applicant, which was subsequently found liable and ordered to pay damages and publish a retraction. The applicant alleged under Article 6 that the domestic proceedings were unfair and under Article 10 that the decisions of the domestic courts violated its right to freedom of expression.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 10 were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit its own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 20 April 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of its observations had expired on 15 March 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’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 received this letter on 8 May 2011. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue its 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.
Søren Nielsen Nina
Vajić
Registrar President