THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 61525/14
Konstantin Vasilyevich KOKOVIKHIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 March 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 5 November 2014,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Konstantin Vasilyevich Kokovikhin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Kirov.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained that he had been deprived of the title to a land plot in contravention of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
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.
By letter dated 16 December 2016, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 3 June 2016 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.
By letter of 6 February 2016, the applicant informed the Court that he wished to pursue his application before the Court. No observations were submitted.
THE LAW
The Court has already considered a similar situation, in which the applicant had disregarded the requirements of the Court’s procedure and had failed to comply with the time-limits set for the submission of his observations (see Dąbrowski v. Poland, (dec.), 34087/96, 29 January 2002, and Sotnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 9911/08, 19 January 2016). Having regard to the fact that the applicant had never submitted his observations, despite the warnings advising him that the Court might apply Article 37 § 1 in his case, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of his case and decided to strike it out of the list of its cases.
The situation in the instant case is no different. Even though the applicant wishes to have his application examined by the Court, he has disregarded the requirements of the proceedings before it. He has not submitted his observations to the present date. Moreover, he has not put forward any reason for the failure to do so.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) 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 4 May 2017.
Fatoş AracıHelen Keller
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy