FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 61434/08
by Ruslan Ramzanovich YAKHIKHANOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 October 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Ruslan Ramzanovich Yakhikhanov, a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Grozny. 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 Articles 2, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention that his father had been killed by State agents in 2002 in Grozny, in the Chechen Republic, and that he had no effective domestic remedies available in this respect.
The applicant's complaints under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. On 2 November 2009 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 5 March 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the his observations had expired on 14 December 2009 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. On 28 April 2010 the Registry's letter was returned to sender for the reason that the applicant had not resided at the address indicated.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, having failed in his obligation to notify the Court of any change in his address and having sent no correspondence to the Registry since the date of lodging of the application, 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 Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy