FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33841/13
Vasiliy Nikolayevich KUZMIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9 December 2014 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 30 April 2013,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Vasiliy Nikolayevich Kuzmin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Cheboksary.
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 3 of the Convention about a poor quality of medical services afforded to him in detention.
The applicant’s complaints were 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 22 May 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 2 April 2014 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 applicant received this letter on 13 June 2014. However, no response has been received.
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 WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy