FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27325/06
by Marsel ALIBAYEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 September 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 May 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Marsel Uralovich Alibayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and is serving his sentence in the Vologda region. 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’s complaints under Articles 7, 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention 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 his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 27 April 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 30 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 16 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 his 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 NielsenNina Vajić
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy