Globe24h logo

Please read our
Frequent Q&A
before contacting us.

Browse European Court of Human Rights decisions by country:

Albania | Andorra | Armenia | Austria | Azerbaijan | Belgium | Bosnia-Herzegovina | Bulgaria | Croatia | Cyprus | Czech Republic | Denmark | Estonia | Finland | France | Georgia | Germany | Greece | Hungary | Iceland | Ireland | Italy | Latvia | Liechtenstein | Lithuania | Luxembourg | Malta | Monaco | Montenegro | Netherlands | Norway | Poland | Portugal | Macedonia | Moldova | Romania | Russia | San-Marino | Serbia | Slovakia | Slovenia | Spain | Strasbourg | Sweden | Switzerland | Turkey | Ukraine | United Kingdom

Personal Data Removal - Request Form




Application no. 9159/04
by Yelena Grigoryevna NOVITSKAYA (MORDASHOVA)
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

              Christos Rozakis, President,
              Nina Vajić,
              Anatoly Kovler,
              Elisabeth Steiner,
              Khanlar Hajiyev,
              Dean Spielmann,
              Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,

and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 January 2004,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:


The applicant, Ms Yelena Grigoryevna (Novitskaya) Mordashova, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Moscow. As of 22 February 2006 the applicant, whose surname at the time of introduction of the application was Mordashova, has changed it to Novitskaya. She was represented by Mr Evgeniy S. Rashchevskiy and Ms Elena A. Krotova, lawyers in the St Petersburg branch of Egorov, Puginskiy, Afanasiyev and Partners, a law firm located in Moscow.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Georgy Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant, previously married to one Mr Aleksey Aleksandrovich Mordashev who at the time was the CEO of a leading Russian steel manufacturer OAO Severstal based in the town of Cherepovets, took part in court proceedings against her former husband concerning the alimony payments as well as her claims for the division of property.

In part relating to the alimony payments, the case was examined by the domestic courts at two instances on 29 October and 10 December 2002 respectively. The applicant's claims were rejected in full.

By a first instance judgment of 19 March 2003 the applicant's claims concerning the division of property were examined and dismissed. By the same judgment the applicant was ordered to pay a court fee of 213,792,743 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 5,927,000 euros (EUR)).

According to the applicant, she did not have the amount specified in the judgment dated 19 March 2003. The applicant attempted to bring appeal proceedings in respect of the judgment of 19 March 2003. In order to be able to lodge the appeal the applicant was again obliged to pay a court fee. In this regard she lodged a request for this fee to be reduced.

By decisions taken on 9 April and 15 May 2003 the domestic courts at two instances reduced the appeal court fee to RUB 12,000,000 (approximately EUR 333,000) and refused to reduce it any further.

In 2003 the applicant also brought another court claim against her former husband, demanding more money on the basis of a serious change in the financial situation of the parties. The applicant also requested the court to grant her one half of the former husband's shares in OAO Severstal.

By a final judgment of 2 September 2003 the applicant's new claims relating to alimony payments were examined and granted in full.

By a final judgment of 20 November 2003 the proceedings relating to the division of property were discontinued with reference to the fact that the issue had already been resolved in the proceedings which had ended with the judgment of 19 March 2003.


1.  The applicant complained that her rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention were breached in the first set of proceedings against her husband. In particular, she was dissatisfied with her alleged inability to attend the court hearings in the proceedings and also claimed that the court fee that she had been ordered to pay in the mentioned judgment had been exorbitant and had effectively deprived her of access to court. She also alleged that the operation of the domestic rules on court fees had precluded her not only from contesting the amount of the first instance court fee on appeal, but also from bringing any appeal proceedings in respect of the judgment of 19 March 2003.

2.  Under Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 the applicant complained that the supervisory review decision of 11 June 2003 in the second set of proceedings against her husband had violated her freedom of movement as the supervisory review court had wrongly regarded her place of residence as a relevant factor in the determination of the case. The applicant also complained generally about the unsuccessful outcome of the second set of court proceedings that she had brought against her former husband.


On 5 September 2008 the President of the Court gave notice of the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 12 January 2009. The applicant submitted her observations on the admissibility and merits of the case in reply on 12 March 2009.

By letter of 26 February 2010 the applicant informed the Court that she has reached “a mutually satisfactory settlement of the dispute, underlying this application” at the domestic level and that she did not intend to proceed with this case.

Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The Court finds no reasons concerning respect for human rights warranting the further 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              Christos Rozakis
              Registrar              President



<<<      |      >>>