Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.10.2009 «Дело Шемилова и Шемилов (Shemilova and Shemilov) против России» [англ.]

turning to the first applicant, that her living conditions were quite good and that apparently it was the house of some Chechen field commander. The soldiers then sprayed the walls inside the house with petrol and set it on fire. The house, with the applicants' possessions inside it, was completely burnt down.
11. On an unspecified date the applicants complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Office of the Interior of Grozny ("the Oktyabrskiy VOVD") that federal servicemen had burnt their house down.
12. On 5 April 2000 the Oktyabrskiy VOVD decided to dispense with criminal proceedings on the grounds that it was impossible to establish to which military unit the servicemen involved in the arson attack belonged.
13. According to the Government, on 24 January 2006 the decision of 5 April 2000 was set aside and criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 167 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated deliberate destruction of, or infliction of damage on, property) in connection with the incident of 29 March 2000. The investigation was under the supervision of the Prosecutor General's Office.
14. On 19 September 2000 the local authorities drew up an evaluation report (дефектный акт), which listed the items of the applicants' property that had been destroyed on 29 March 2000.
15. On an unspecified date the applicants obtained an estimate of costs for repair works to be carried out on their house.
16. On 11 October 2001 the applicants brought proceedings in the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Grozny ("the District Court"), seeking damages in connection with the deliberate destruction of their property by the federal servicemen.
17. On 6 November 2001 the District Court held that the applicants' claims "could not be allowed in court proceedings" on the ground that the alleged damage should be compensated in accordance with the temporary regulations concerning compensation and other social benefits for Russian citizens who had suffered damage as a result of the military conflict in the Chechen Republic, and therefore the applicants should apply to a local migration service for compensation.
18. On 5 March 2002 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the above judgment on appeal, having repeated the reasoning of the first-instance court.
19. The applicants did not apply for compensation in accordance with the ruling of the domestic courts.

THE LAW

20. Following the decision on admissibility, in a letter of 19 December 2008 the Court invited the parties to submit their further observations by 16 February 2009. The Government, but not the applicants, submitted their observations within the specified time-limit.
21. In the absence of any reply from the applicants, by a registered letter of 16 April 2009 the Court drew the attention of the applicants' representative to the fact that the period allowed for submission of the applicants' observations and claims for just satisfaction had expired and that no extension of the deadline had been requested. The applicants' representative was reminded that, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicants do not intend to pursue the application.
22. This letter was returned to the Court on 30 June 2009 bearing the mark "unclaimed".
23. Meanwhile, on 26 May 2009 the Court sent a registered letter similar to that of 16 April 2009 and enclosing a copy of the Court's letter of 19 December 2008 to the applicants' address indicated in their application form. This letter was also returned to the Court on 30 June 2009 with an indication to the effect that it had been impossible to find the applicants as they no longer resided at the indicated address. The applicant

> 1 2 3