THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33173/12
Yuriy Radomirovich DUBROVITSKIY
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 October 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 March 2012,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Yuriy Radomirovich Dubrovitskiy, was born in 1962.
He was represented before the Court by Ms V. Leonidchenko, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention as well as under Article 5 § 3 concerning excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
The Court’s letters informing the applicant about the communication of the case and asking him to provide observations in response to the Government’s submissions were returned to the Court undelivered.
By letter of 25 April 2017 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that she was unable to reach the applicant by any available means.
The documents submitted by the Government showed that the applicant had been released from detention in 2012 after the criminal proceedings against him had been discontinued. The applicant has not contacted the Court since his release.
THE LAW
The Court reiterates that an applicant’s representative must not only supply a power of attorney or written authority (Rule 45 § 3 of the Rules of Court) 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).
In the present case it appears that the last time the applicant and his lawyer were in contact was no later than 2012 when the applicant submitted his application to the Court. The Court further observes that it follows from the case file that the applicant was released shortly thereafter. However, up to the present date, no information about his release, his new place of residence and/or any relevant information, including about his last contact with his lawyer, has been provided to the Court by either the applicant or the lawyer.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the application (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 the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the application.
Accordingly, the case should be struck 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 9 November 2017.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy