THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 65526/11
Rustem Gazizovich SAFIULLIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5 March 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 October 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Rustem Gazizovich Safiullin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Ufa.
The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a failure by the State to provide him adequate and efficient legal assistance in the enforcement of judgments against a private party.
By the letter of 1 March 2018 the applicant was informed that notice of part of his application was given to the Government and that he needed to be represented by an advocate at the subsequent stages of the proceedings. He was invited to submit a completed authority form within ten weeks from the date of the letter.
In his letter of 28 March 2018 the applicant briefly stated that he did not wish to submit any comments and that he claimed only just satisfaction.
By the letter of 17 April 2018 accompanied by an unofficial translation into Russian the applicant was reminded that he had to designate a representative. He was requested to do so by 4 June 2018.
In his letter of 10 May 2018 the applicant sent to the Court a dated and signed authority form with the part concerning the representative left blank. The letter stated “... [h]aving received your letter, I give my consent to representation of my interests in your court ...”
By the letter of 18 June 2018 the Court repeatedly requested the applicant to designate a representative by 6 August 2018. A copy of the Court’s previous letter of 17 April 2018 and its unofficial translation were enclosed.
The Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicant by the letter of 13 July 2018 and the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. He was reminded that he must be represented before the Court and invited to submit a completed authority form by 31 August 2018.
In his letter of 27 July 2018 the applicant confirmed receipt of the Court’s letters of inter alia 17 April 2018 and 18 June 2018. He indicated that he had no representative and that he agreed to be represented by a person appointed by the Court. He repeatedly enclosed an authority form with the part concerning the representative left blank.
In his last letter of 31 July 2018 the applicant confirmed receipt of the Court’s letter of 13 July 2018 and submitted yet another authority form without designating a representative.
By the letter of 22 October 2018, sent by the registered post, the applicant was reminded that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 14 September 2018 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant was also reminded that he had to be represented for the purposes of the proceedings. He was asked to designate a representative by 19 November 2018. The applicant’s attention was further drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (c) 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 or where for any reason it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. On 6 November 2018 the letter became available for pickup at the post office. On 6 December 2018 the letter was dispatched back to the sender and on 4 January 2019 reached the Court. No reply has been given to the Registry’s above-mentioned letter.
The applicant never alleged, either explicitly or in substance, that he had had difficulties with finding or appointing a representative or that he had wished to present his own case.
THE LAW
The Court notes at the outset that Rule 44 A of the Rules of Court clearly establishes that the parties have a duty to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings and, in particular, to take such action within their power as the Court considers necessary for the proper administration of justice.
The Court further notes that in accordance with Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 of the Rules of Court the applicant should be represented before the Court following notification of the application to the Government, unless the President of the Chamber decides otherwise.
In the present case the Court on five separate occasions informed the applicant that under Rule 36 he needs to appoint an advocate to represent his interests in subsequent proceedings, twice the letters were accompanied by unofficial translation into the Russian language. The applicant replied by sending the dated and signed authority forms with the part concerning the representative left blank. No reply has been given to the Registry’s letter of 22 October 2018. On no occasion did the applicant either allege any difficulty with appointing a representative or submit a request to present his own case. In the light of the foregoing, the Court reaches the conclusion that the applicant has failed to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings, as required under Rule 44 A of the Rules of Court.
Having regard to the applicant’s conduct and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for human rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
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 28 March 2019.
Fatoş AracıAlena Poláčková
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy