CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 décembre 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 } .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 } .s3480A186 { width:173.6pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 18660/10 Valeriy Ivanovich BELYAKOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10   December 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Elisabeth Steiner, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, judges and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 March 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Valeriy Ivanovich Belyakov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1946 and lived in Slavyansk, Krasnodar region. 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 Article 6 that the appeal hearing of 29   September 2009 had been held in his absence. He also complained under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the outcome of the above proceedings. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 about holding the appeal hearing in his civil case in his absence was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. 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 20 February 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 13 December 2012 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 29 May 2013 the postal service returned the letter of 20 February 2013 to the Court with a note indicating that the addressee (the applicant) had died. THE LAW The Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings the Court has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. It has done so most frequently in cases which primarily involved pecuniary, and, for this reason, transferable claims. The Court observes that in the present case none of the applicant’s heirs or close family members informed the Court of their wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. Furthermore, the Court does not see any question of general interest which would justify the continued examination of the application (see, by contrast, Karner v. Austria , no. 40016/98, § 26, ECHR 2003-IX). Having regard to the above, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application and concludes pursuant to Articles 37   §   1 (c) of the Convention that the application should be struck out of its list of cases. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   André Wampach   Elisabeth Steiner   Deputy Registrar   President