FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27085/05
Vitaliy Nikolayevich KARASEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 January 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabeth Steiner, President,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Ksenija Turković, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 July 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Nikolayevich Karasev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1967.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Article 6 about the length of the civil proceedings in his case. The application 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.
By letter dated 10 November 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 7 October 2009 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. The letter was returned to the Court: the mail service had been unable to serve it on the applicant because he had moved out. In that context, the Court recalls that, pursuant to Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court, “applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application”. However, the applicant failed to inform the Court of the change of his postal address or to indicate any provisional address at which communication with him can be effected.
THE LAW
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.
André WampachElisabeth Steiner
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy