CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 novembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE22B0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:11pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E698226 { width:12.01pt; display:inline-block } .sDB6B63EE { width:176.94pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC390DDB3 { text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 37764/06 Maksim Valeryevich SOLOVYEV against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26   November 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Julia Laffranque,   Erik Møse, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates listed in the appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     All applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of their pre-trial detention had been inhuman and degrading. In addition, Mr Solovyev alleged that a part of that detention was unlawful and in breach of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 4.     The applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Government who submitted unilateral declarations with a view to settling the cases. The declarations were forwarded to the applicants who were invited to comment on them. 5.     By further letters, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their comments on the unilateral declarations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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. 6.     In the period from 27 August to 21 October 2013, the registered letters returned to the Court as unclaimed or undeliverable due to a change of the recipient’s address. 7.     The applicants did not inform the Court of any change in their contact details. THE LAW 8.     According to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that an applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 9.     The Court considers that the applicants’ failure to inform the Registry about the change of their contact details despite the explicit obligation highlighted in the Registry’s letters indicates that they have lost interest in their complaints, 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 cases. 10.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to consider their applications in a single decision and to strike them out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike them out of its list of cases.   André Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   37764/06 10/07/2006 Maksim Valeryevich SOLOVYEV 30/11/1978 Klintsy       51152/09 14/09/2009 Andrey Vladimirovich BOLSHAKOV 13/05/1969 Omsk   Sergey Sergeyevich ZAKHARCHUK   63395/09 31/10/2009 Igor Viktorovich SKURYATIN 02/01/1974 Petrov Val       29289/10 27/04/2010 Denis Nikolayevich GUSHCHIN 17/03/1977 Revda