FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 58254/10
Mikhail DUMA
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 November 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Päivi Hirvelä,
George Nicolaou,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 October 2010,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mikhail Duma, is a Russian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Mäntyharju. His application was lodged on 6 October 2010. He was represented before the Court by Ms Kaisu Tiirola, a lawyer practising in Mikkeli. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The Russian Government, who had expressed their wish to make use of their right to intervene under Article 36 of the Convention, were represented by Mr Georgy Matyushkin, representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that, as no place in a nursing home could be given to him in Russia, his deportation to the Russian Federation would constitute abandonment which would shorten his life. He had a right to enjoy family life with his children and his grandchild who all lived in Finland and were committed to taking care of him. He was completely dependent on his children and had no relatives left in Russia.
On 19 January 2011 the President of the Section decided to indicate to the Government of Finland, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be removed to Russia until further notice. It was also decided to grant priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
On 21 February 2011 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints detailed above.
On 14 June 2011 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These were forwarded on 22 June 2011 to the applicant, who was invited to submit observations in reply by 20 July 2011.
On 19 July 2011 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant wanted to withdraw the application since he had returned to Russia where he had received a place in a suitable nursing home.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to lift the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and 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.
Lawrence EarlyLech Garlicki
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy