FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16635/09
Nikolay Sergeyevich TALTYGIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 October 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Julia Laffranque,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and Søren Prebensen, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 December 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Nikolay Sergeyevich Taltygin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Stavropol.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention about the alleged unlawfulness of his detention pending trial.
The applicant’s complaints 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 4 February 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 3 December 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. The applicant did not collect the Court’s letter from the post office and it was returned to the Court as unclaimed.
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.
Søren PrebensenKhanlar Hajiyev
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy