FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40025/06
Valeriy Petrovich SHAMANOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 November 2013 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 21 August 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Valeriy Petrovich Shamanov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Belgorod.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the annulment of a final judgment in supervisory review proceedings. He also submitted a number of accessory complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 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 26 February 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 25 December 2012 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, the letter was delivered to the Court as not claimed by the addressee.
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