THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9371/20
Artsrun Khalturovich SEROBYAN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 December 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 January 2020,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Artsrun Khalturovich Serobyan, was born in 1960.
The applicant was represented by Mr G. Palaturyan, a lawyer practising in Rostov-on-Don.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention as well as under Article 3 concerning the use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms and Article 13 concerning the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”)
On 15 July 2020 the applicant’s son informed the Registry that the applicant had died and that he wanted to continue the case in the applicant’s stead. The Government objected to the son’s standing in the proceedings before the Court.
THE LAW
The Court notes that it normally permits the next of kin to pursue an application provided he or she has sufficient interest, where the original applicant has died after the introduction of the application before the Court (see Micallef v. Malta [GC], 17056/06, § 47, 15 October 2009).
In this respect, the Court recalls that relatives of a deceased person cannot be considered as victims for complaints concerning the length of detention of their relative (see, mutatis mutandis, Biç and Others v. Turkey, no. 55955/00, § 22, 2 February 2006, and Pancheno v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 31085/05, 26 January 2010) or complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, such as the one at hand which has a specific personal nature (see Brūzītis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 15028/04, 26 August 2014). In particular, there is no evidence in the case file to conclude that the applicant’s son was affected by the fact of the applicant’s detention or his participation in court hearings from a metal cage (see Biç and Others v. Turkey, cited above, § 23). The son did not expressly confirm that he was affected by the violations alleged by the applicant and that he suffered in this regard. He did not argue that he attended court hearings or visited the applicant in detention at all. In his letter to the Court he concentrated purely on the death of the applicant in detention.
The Court further notes that, having claimed to be the applicant’s heir, he also did not provide any document, such as a succession certificate, to confirm acceptance of the late applicant’s succession (see Rista and Others v. Albania [Committee], nos. 5207/10 and 6 others, 17 March 2016) or any statement confirming that he had accepted succession after the deceased father (contrast Romankevič v. Lithuania, no. 25747/07, § 15, 2 December 2014) or any other documents or detailed information which could be of relevance in his particular case (contrast Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003). He failed to do so even after the Government expressly objected to his standing in their further submissions after having learnt of the applicant’s death.
Against this background, the Court finds that the request to pursue the proceedings was submitted by a person who has provided no evidence of his status as an heir (see, mutatis mutandis, Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 50, 30 March 2009) or that he was affected by the violations alleged by the applicant and that he suffered in this regard.
In the light of the foregoing, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, it does not consider that “respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols” requires the examination of the application despite the applicant’s death.
Accordingly, the case should be struck 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 21 January 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Liv TigerstedtDarian Pavli
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy