THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10633/07
Artem Sergeyevich DVOYNOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 May 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Alena Poláčková, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 October 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Artem Sergeyevich Dvoynov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Susuman, the Magadan Region.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
3. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that during his incarceration the prison administration had refused to permit long-term visits by the applicant’s domestic partner Ms K. because she was not considered a member of the applicant’s immediate family or his relative.
4. The applicant’s complaint was 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.
5. By letter dated 28 January 2016, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 24 December 2015 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. On 1 April 2016 the letter was returned to the Court as undelivered. As of the date of the examination of the application, no further information has been received from the applicant, including notification about the change of his address.
THE LAW
6. 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 15 June 2017.
Fatoş AracıHelen Keller
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy