CASE OF KIRILLOVA v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KIRILLOVA v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 50775/13)

JUDGMENT

(Just satisfaction)

STRASBOURG

17 April 2018

FINAL

17/07/2018

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kirillova v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Helena Jäderblom, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Helen Keller,
Dmitry Dedov,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Alena Poláčková,
Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 27 March 2018,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 50775/13) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Ms Natalya Viktorovna Kirillova (“the applicant”), on 31 July 2013.

2. In a judgment delivered on 13 September 2016 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Kirillova v. Russia, no. 50775/13, §§ 20-40, 13 September 2016) and made an award under Article 41 of the Convention to the applicant as regards her claims in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

3. Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicant sought just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage making its amount dependent on the outcome of the enforcement proceedings at the national level.

4. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention, as regards pecuniary damage was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within four months from the date on which the judgment became final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., § 48, and point 4 of the operative provisions).

5. The Government filed observations.

6. The applicant failed to pick up the Registry’s most recent letter of 21 November 2017 reminding her that the period allowed for submission of her observations on just satisfaction had expired on 29 August 2017 and that no extension of time had been requested. Her attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

THE LAW

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, the remainder of the application should be struck out of the list.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 April 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Stephen Phillips Helena Jäderblom
Registrar President