FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15356/11
Artur Ravilevich DUSALIYEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 March 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Julia Laffranque,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 February 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Artur Ravilevich Dusaliyev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1985 and lives in Ufa. He was represented before the Court by Mr R.S. Dusaliyev, a lawyer practising in Ufa.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Articles 3, 5 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that on 13-15 February 2008 he had been unlawfully detained and ill-treated by the officers of the Ufa Department of the Federal Service of Drug Control and that the domestic investigation in his allegations of ill‑treatment had been ineffective. He submitted under Article 5 § 2 that he had not been informed of the reasons for his arrest, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the Drug Control officers had unlawfully seized a sum of money from him during the criminal investigation and under Article 6 § 1 that the court proceedings concerning his challenge of the seizure had been unfair.
By letter dated 12 September 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 19 June 2012 and that no extension of that time-limit 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 applicants do not intend to pursue the application.
On 1 October 2012 the applicant’s representative received the letter. No reply followed.
THE LAW
Having regard to the correspondence with the applicant, the Court finds that he 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.
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