CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 août 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s44360B8C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD79BB263 { width:196.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 46717/07 by Dmitriy YELISEYEV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26   August 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 August 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS The application was lodged by Mr Dmitriy Vladimirovich Yeliseyev, a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Dzhaganyan. The respondent Government were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 11 March 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the final instance sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment. He was transferred to correctional colony no. YuK-25/6 of the Orenburg Region. On an unspecified date the applicant applied for a supervisory review of his conviction. On 4 April 2007 the applicant was transferred to remand centre no. IZ-77/2 of Moscow for participation in the supervisory-review hearing. In that centre he was allegedly held in overcrowded cells. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about appalling conditions of his detention and lack of an effective domestic remedy for this grievance. THE LAW The Court recalls Article   37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows: “1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” The Court observes that, by letter of 9 September 2009, the Government's observations were forwarded to the applicant's representative who was requested to submit observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 17 November 2009. No response was received. By letter of 19 January 2010 sent by registered mail, the applicant's representative was advised that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court would 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. No reply was received and further attempts to contact the applicant's representative were unsuccessful. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be considered as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court further considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of his complaints (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 1 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list of cases. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President