THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 57780/10
Andrey Aleksandrovich VALEYEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 March 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 August 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Andrey Aleksandrovich Valeyev, was born in 1977.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning his absence from civil proceedings were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
On 31 May 2016 the Court sent a letter to the applicant, noting that the period allowed for submission of his position as regards the friendly settlement in his application had expired on 18 May 2016. He did not write back.
By letter dated 16 December 2016, sent by registered post to the most recent address known to the Court, the applicant was again informed that the period allowed for submission of his position as regards the friendly settlement in his application had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The Court also noted the absence of any correspondence from the applicant for a long time and invited him to inform the Court of any developments in his case at the domestic level, as well as any other changes in his personal details, and to accompany his reply with copies of relevant documents. To confirm his interest in pursuing the application, the applicant was asked to reply to the Court’s letter even if there had been no developments in his case or no change in his personal situation and even if he did not wish to comment on the Government’s friendly settlement proposal.
The applicant’s attention was also 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 may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the application (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 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 6 April 2017.
Karen ReidLuis López Guerra
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy