THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30692/11
Vladimir Grigoryevch OSTANIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 November 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 April 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Grigoryevch Ostanin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1963 and is detained in Irkutsk.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyuskin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about his absence from the civil proceedings to which he was a party, and under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the temporary detention facility. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about non-enforcement of the final judgment in his favour.
The applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 3 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 20 January 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 27 May 2013 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. 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 December 2015.
Marialena TsirliHelena Jäderblom
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy