FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2565/06
Dmitriy Davydovich DINER
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 December 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Erik Møse,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 December 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Davydovich Diner, is a Russian national, who was born in 1973 and has his permanent address in Moscow. His current whereabouts are unknown to the Court.
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 complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfair criminal trial and the absence of an opportunity to examine a number of prosecution witnesses.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 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 24 September 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified at his permanent address in Moscow that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 12 June 2012 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.
A letter in similar terms was also sent on 24 September 2012, by registered post, to another contact address indicated by the applicant in his application form (that of Mr S., his counsel in the domestic proceedings).
As to the first letter, it appears from the available material that the local post office attempted to deliver it to the relevant address. However, the applicant was not residing there. The Court’s letter was then returned to it as undelivered.
As to the second letter, Mr S. received this letter on 10 October 2012. 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.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy