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 } .sDB6B63EE { width:176.94pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 49682/06 Dmitriy Gennadyevich MOSKALEV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10   December 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 application lodged on 14 September 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Gennadyevich Moskalev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1965 and lived in Moscow before his arrest. 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, who had been serving his sentence of imprisonment in a penal facility in the Komi Republic, complained, in particular, under Article   3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the punishment ward of that facility. The applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The Government’s 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 6 May 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 10 January 2013 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. No response followed. On 27 June 2013 the Court asked the Government to provide factual information. In particular, the Government was requested to confirm that the applicant had received the Court’s letters, including the one sent on 6 May 2013, and to provide evidence in support of their statements. On 13 August 2013 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had been released. Having produced extracts from the correspondence logs of the applicant’s correctional colony, they further stressed that the Court’s letters received after the applicant’s release had been forwarded to his home address which he had indicated to the authorities upon his release. The Court forwarded the Government’s letter of 13 August 2013 to the applicant’s home address in Moscow. No response has been received. THE LAW In that context, the Court recalls that, pursuant to Rule   47 §   6 of the Rules of Court, “applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application”. Under that Rule, it is incumbent on the applicant to provide at least a minimum of information, namely his postal address, enabling the Court to conduct correspondence with him and to proceed with his petition. In the present case the applicant failed to inform the Court of the change of his postal address or to indicate any provisional address at which communication with him can be effected. The applicant also could have appointed a representative with whom the Court could have maintained communication while the applicant was not able to respond. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant no longer wishes 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   Khanlar Hajiyev   Deputy Registrar   President