LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
TANKANAG AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 18767/13;28481/13;58425/13;58433/13;58580/13 • ECHR ID: 001-170638
Document date: December 13, 2016
- Inbound citations: 5
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
TANKANAG AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 18767/13;28481/13;58425/13;58433/13;58580/13 • ECHR ID: 001-170638
Document date: December 13, 2016
Cited paragraphs only
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 18767/13 Vladimir Grigoryevich TANKANAG and O thers against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 December 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President, Pere Pastor Vilanova, Alena Poláčková , judges,
and Fato ş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appendix ,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about unlawful extension of the time-limits for lodging a casation appeals and quashing of the final domestic judgments in their favour.
On 28 August and 1 October 2014 the applicants ’ complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations.
On different dates the representatives of Mr Tankanag , Mr Kuchmenov , Mr Kerefov , Mr Stashyalis , Mr Karpenko, Mr Bezrodnov , Mr Veresov , Mr Nikitenko and Mr Zaichenko informed the Court that they had either lost contact with the applicants or in case of Mr Kostromskoy the applicant had been dead and none of his relatives expressed a wish to pursue his application before the Court. T herefore the applicants ’ representatives were unable to submit observations on the applicants ’ behalf.
As for Mr Volotskiy the widow of the late applicant submitted the death certificate and the certificate of marriage express ing her wish to pursue the application on the late applicant ’ s behalf.
On different dates , indicated in the appendix , by letters, sent by registered post, the applicants , except for Mr Kostromskoy and Mr Volotskiy , were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants 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. No response has been received from the applicant s .
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
As regards Mr Volotskiy ’ s application the Court observes that the late applicant ’ s widow, Ms Volotskaya , failed to submit a succession certificate confirming that she had accepted the late applicant ’ s succession (see Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases v. Russia , nos. 8549/06 and 86 others, § 39, 29 July 2010, with further references and by contrast, Shurygina and Others v. Russia , [Committee], nos. 2982/05, 5991/05, 9546/05 and 24130/06 , § 16). In these circumstances, and having regard to its case-law, the Court considers that Ms Volotskaya has no standing to pursue the application on behalf of her late husband.
As regards the other applicants, the Court considers that the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case s out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 January 2017 .
FatoÅŸ Aracı Helen Keller Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
No .
Application No .
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Represented by
Date of communication
Date of the last correspondence
18767/13
12/02/2013
Vladimir Grigoryevich TANKANAG
18/10/1938
Nalchik
Russian
Andemirkan Muratovich KUCHMENOV
01/07/1937
Shalushka
Russian
Karalbi Gidovich KEREFOV
09/12/1939
Shalushka
Russian
Magamed Saltanmuratovich ABUBAKAROV
28/08/2014
12/05/2014
28481/13
08/04/2013
Algis Kazio STASHYALIS
04/03/1963
Prokhladnyy
Russian
Zaur Borisovich GESHEV
01/10/2014
21/10/2015
58425/13
26/08/2013
Viktor Mikhaylovich KOSTROMSKOY
18/10/1955
Prokhladnyy
Russian
Magamed Saltanmuratovich ABUBAKAROV
01/10/2014
19/10/2015
58433/13
26/08/2013
Aleksandr Fedorovich KARPENKO
07/06/1953
Mayskiy
Russian
Mikhail Yakovlevich BEZRODNOV
06/06/1953
Mayskiy
Russian
Magamed Saltanmuratovich ABUBAKAROV
01/10/2014
21/10/2015
58580/13
26/08/2013
Aleksey Sergeyevich VERESOV
19/03/1954
Prokhladnyy
Russian
Viktor Viktorovich VOLOTSKIY
16/08/1946
Prokhladnyy
Russian
Sergey Pavlovich NIKITENKO
20/04/1954
Aleksandrovskaya
Russian
Aleksandr Vasilyevich ZAICHENKO
05/12/1950
Aleksandrovskaya
Russian
Magamed Saltanmuratovich ABUBAKAROV
01/10/2014
21/10/2015
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
