CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG25
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 février 2012
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0214DEC002118707
- Date
- 14 février 2012
- Publication
- 14 février 2012
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleStruck out of the list
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .s208721C6 { width:191.62pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no 21187/07 Konstantin Vasilyevich PRIVALOV against Russia lodged on 2 April 2007 The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14   February 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Julia Laffranque, judges and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 April 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Konstantin Vasilyevich Privalov, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Petushki, Vladimir   Region. He was represented before the Court by Mr   F.   Bagryanskiy, a lawyer practising in Vladimir. 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, inter alia , under Article   3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention and under Article   5   §   4 of the Convention about the lack of speediness of the review of his detention. On 9   September 2011 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These were forwarded on 14   September 2011 to the applicant, who was invited to submit observations in reply by 16   November 2011. On 3   November 2011 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant wished no longer to pursue his application before the Court. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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   Peer Lorenzen Deputy Registrar   PresidentCitations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
- Formation
- 25
- Date
- 14 février 2012
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0214DEC002118707
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral