THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 67903/17
Vitaliy Borisovich DYAKONOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 March 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 September 2017,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Borisovich Dyakonov, was born in 1950.
He was represented by Mr V.V. Yegazaryants, a lawyer practising in Astrakhan.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention as well as other complaints, subject of well-established case-law of the Court, were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
On 10 October 2019 the applicant’s representative informed the Registry that the applicant had died. His mother, Ms K. Dyakonova, expressed the wish to pursue the application. The Government did not challenge Ms Dyakonova’s standing.
By letter dated 17 September 2020, the applicant’s representative informed the Registry of Ms Dyakonova’s death and of the intention of Ms A. Arefyeva, to pursue the application. Ms Arefyeva claimed to be Ms Dyakonova’s niece (daughter of Ms Dyakonova’s brother). She submitted copies of marriage and birth certificates of Ms Dyakonova and herself.
In response, the Government argued that Ms Arefyeva did not have standing to continue the proceedings in the applicant’s stead. They considered that she was neither a close relative of the applicant nor his heir and they did not discern any legitimate interest on her part in pursuing the application before the Court. Thus, the Government requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.
THE LAW
The Court reiterates that, in cases where an applicant died after having lodged an application, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). In this connection, the Court notes that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons close to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000‑XII).
Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that, when requesting to pursue the proceedings, Ms Arefyeva provided evidence neither of her status as an heir to the applicant, nor of being a close family member with a legitimate interest in pursuing the case in the applicant’s stead (see, among other authorities, Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 50, 30 March 2009). Moreover, the Court can discern no question of a general interest which would justify the continued examination of the application (see, by contrast, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 27, ECHR 2003-IX).
In the light of the foregoing, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the 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 15 April 2021.
Liv TigerstedtDarian Pavli
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy