CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 mai 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 } .s74FD211E { width:197.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application nos. 57335/13 and 42645/14 Dmitriy Alekseyevich DUBOVIKOV against Russia and Mikhail Vladimirovich CHUPOV against Russia (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 May 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 13 August 2013 and 26   May 2014 respectively, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr   G.   Matyuskin, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mr   A. Fedorov, Head of the Office of the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention on account of their confinement in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against them and the complaint by Mr M. Chupov under Article 3 of the Convention on account of his handcuffing during the pronouncement of the judgment were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letters dated 4 July 2016, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 13 May 2016 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. No response has been received. THE LAW The Court considers that the applications should be joined and considered in a single decision. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.   Done in English and notified in writing on 24 May 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Luis López Guerra Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   57335/13 13/08/2013 Dmitriy Alekseyevich DUBOVIKOV 20/03/1985 Revda       42645/14 26/05/2014 Mikhail Vladimirovich CHUPOV 27/03/1973 Moscow   Vadim Valentinovich LOGINOV