FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37035/06
Sergey Aleksandrovich DOTSKOV against Russia
and 7 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 April 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Julia Laffranque,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in Appendix below,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by, Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
All applicants except one (application no. 46975/06) complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they had been unfairly convicted as a result of entrapment by the police. The applicant in application no. 46975/06 complained under Article 6 § 1 that he was not given an opportunity to examine witnesses against him.
The applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter from any of the applicants. The Registry attempted to contact the applicants individually, as set out below. Their 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.
By letter dated 8 October 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 37035/06 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 22 May 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The delivery of letter failed due to the applicant’s absence at the address communicated by him to the Court. He did not inform the Court of the change of his address. No correspondence has been received from him thereafter.
By letter dated 8 October 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 46975/06 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 22 May 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant received this letter on 8 November 2013. However, he failed to respond.
By letter dated 5 September 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 6226/07 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 14 May 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant received this letter on 7 October 2013. However, he failed to respond.
By letter dated 5 September 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 54449/07 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 12 June 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The delivery of this letter failed due to the applicant’s absence at the addresses communicated by him to the Court. He did not inform the Court of the change of his address. No correspondence has been received from him thereafter.
By letter dated 2 September 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 46227/07 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 10 June 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant received this letter on 26 September 2013. However, he failed to respond.
By letter dated 2 September 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 42616/08 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 12 June 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant received this letter on 3 October 2013. However, he failed to respond.
By letter dated 29 August 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 18561/09 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 22 May 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant received this letter on 18 September 2013. However, he failed to respond.
By letter dated 28 August 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 55519/09 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 16 July 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant received this letter on 12 September 2013. However, he failed to respond.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
37035/06
09/06/2006
Sergey Aleksandrovich DOTSKOV
05/04/1968
Chelyabinsk
46975/06
20/10/2006
Aleksandr Yakovlevich SOVERSHENNYY
17/06/1956
Novopavlovsk
6226/07
23/01/2007
Ilya Viktorovich FRANTSUZOV
25/07/1981
Penza
Aleksey Viktorovich AVKSENTYEV
46227/07
17/09/2007
Anatoliy Vyacheslavovich SMIRNOV
19/12/1973
Izhevsk
54449/07
07/11/2007
Dmitriy Yevgenyevich ROGOV
20/10/1969
Volgograd
42616/08
24/07/2008
Vitaliy Petrovich SAZONOV
25/09/1972
Kaliningrad
Sergey Nikolayevich TARASYUK
18561/09
16/02/2009
Viktor Yuryevich MANYAKHIN
30/03/1974
Shakhty
55519/09
07/09/2009
Azat Danisovich VALEYEV
02/02/1988
Ufa
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy