THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 34080/18
Aleksey Aleksandrovich SHARAPIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 November 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 July 2018,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Aleksey Aleksandrovich Sharapin, was born in 1985.
The applicant was represented by Mr A.Vinogradov, a lawyer practising in Kostroma.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as well as under Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention, were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
On 21 February 2019 the Registry sent a letter to the applicant asking him to comment on the Government’s letter of 18 January 2019, in which the Government had doubted the authenticity of the applicant’s signature on the application form authorising Mr Vinogradov to act as his representative in the proceedings before the Court. A similar letter was sent to Mr Vinogrdov. No reply was received from the applicant.
At the same time, Mr Vinogradov informed the Court that he had lost contact with the applicant. Mr Vinogradov claimed that applicant’s ex-inmates “had seen him on TV in crime reports, [the applicant] could have been serving imprisonment in a different colony”. Mr Vinogradov had no information on the applicant’s whereabouts.
By letter dated 21 February 2019, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the information requested in the letter of 21 February 2019 had expired on 4 April 2019 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 an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. No response followed.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant does not wish to pursue the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see V.M. and Others v. Belgium (striking out) [GC], no. 60125/11, §§ 35-41, 17 November 2016). 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 the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the application.
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 19 December 2019.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy