FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20204/05
by German Khaimovich CHERNYAK
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 April 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr German Khaimovich Chernyak, a Russian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Yekaterinburg. He is represented before the Court by Ms L. Kosik, a lawyer practising in Nizhniy Tagil. The respondent Government were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant's complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the alleged ill-treatment by the police and lack of effective investigation 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 12 October 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 17 September 2009 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. No response followed.
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.
André Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy