THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40831/16
A.M.K.
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 September 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 July 2016,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, A.M.K., is a Syrian national, who was born in 1991 and had lived in Syria before he came to Russia in 2013. He was represented before the Court by Mr I.G. Vasilyev, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
The applicant complained about his expulsion to Syria ordered by the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow on 24 May 2016.
On 19 July 2016 the applicant requested the Court to prevent his removal to Syria. On the same date the Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicated to the Russian Government that the applicant should not be removed to Syria until further notice. The applicant’s case was also granted priority (under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court) and confidentiality (under Rule 33), and the applicant was granted anonymity (under Rule 47 § 4).
On 12 October 2016 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application to the Registry of the Court. On 19 October 2016 they were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who submitted observations in reply on 20 December 2016.
On 8 December 2017 the Court requested additional information from the applicant concerning his whereabouts and any relevant ongoing proceedings.
On 4 January 2018 the applicant’s representative replied, inter alia, that on 14 March 2017 the applicant was released from the detention centre for foreigners and that on 27 October 2017 his temporary asylum status was revoked by the Russian authorities and that he was trying to obtain a residency permit.
On 3 April 2018 in reply to the Court’s request for comments, the Government submitted that the applicant had lost his temporary asylum in Russia due to submission of false information or fake documents with his application.
On 5 June 2018 the Court requested the applicant’s lawyer to submit further the information on the applicant’s whereabouts, any ongoing immigration proceedings and also a copy of the decision revoking his temporary asylum status.
On 3 July 2018 the applicant’s lawyer replied stating that he had lost contact with the applicant, that he had no new information concerning his immigration status in Russia or any immigration proceedings pursued by him.
THE LAW
The Court observes that according to the case material, the last time the applicant and his lawyer were presumably in contact was about in January 2018 when the applicant’s lawyer submitted additional information requested by the Court concerning the applicant’s case.
From the letter of 3 July 2018, the Court further observes that the applicant did not maintain contact with his lawyer and failed to keep him informed of his place of residence or to provide him with means of contact.
The Court reiterates that an applicant’s representative must not only supply a power of attorney or written authority (Rule 45 § 3) but that it is also important that contact between the applicant and his or her representative be maintained throughout the proceedings. Such contact is essential both in order to learn more about the applicant’s particular situation and to confirm the applicant’s continuing interest in pursuing the examination of his or her application (see V.M. and Others v. Belgium [GC], no. 60125/11, § 35, 17 November 2016). Furthermore, in the same case the Court held that whilst it was true that the applicants’ representative has power to represent them throughout the entire proceedings before the Court, that power did not by itself justify pursuing the examination of the case (ibid., § 37).
Accordingly, in the light of the above, the Court finds that the applicant has lost interest in the proceedings and no longer intends to pursue the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 October 2018.
Fatoş AracıAlena Poláčková
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy