CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s330D47D5 { width:214.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 21589/10 Anton Ilyich PROKHOROV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30   March 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Helen Keller, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 April 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Anton Ilyich Prokhorov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Aleksandrov, the Vladimir Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention on remand and after conviction. The applicant also complained under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 that his detention on remand from 3 June 2009 to 25 December 2009 was unlawful. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been convicted of drug offence after he had been incited to do so by agent provocateur . On 6 April 2010 the applicant’s representative, Ms P., submitted an application form on his behalf and indicated her personal address as her contact information. On 21 November 2011 she requested the Court to direct all correspondence to her business address. On 15 July 2015 the applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government and a copy of this letter was sent to Ms P.’s business address. On 25 August 2015 the Court’s letter to the applicant’s representative was returned as undelivered and marked “Return to sender. No such number. Unable to deliver.” On 4 November 2015 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s case. On 9   November 2015 the observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative’s personal address indicated in the application form as the Court’s correspondence of 15 July 2015 did not reach her at her business address and no alternative address had been provided by her. She was invited to submit observations on the applicant’s behalf. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. On 5 July 2016 the Registry’s letter to Ms   P. was returned as undelivered. On 8 December 2015 the observations were also forwarded to the applicant and he was informed that his representative could not be reached at the two addresses indicated by her and that she had not informed the Court of the change of her address. The Court also invited the applicant to inform the Court whether he wished Ms P. to continue his representation and if so, provide her new address to the Court. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 26 January 2016, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 21 December 2015 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 2 May 2016 the Registry’s letter to the applicant returned as unclaimed and it was marked “[the recipient] does not reside at this address.” No further information has been received from the applicant or his representative as of the date of the examination of his application.   THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 4 May 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Helen Keller Deputy Registrar   President