CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sE6F1442 { width:204.43pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s77CD2480 { height:110.2pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 2136/07 Andrey Anatolyevich VASILYEV against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13   June 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, 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 represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. The applicants’ complaints under various Articles of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the addresses indicated by the applicants for their correspondence with the Court. The applicants (or, where applicable, their representatives) were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letters. The Court decides to examine these applications jointly in a single decision. As to application no. 2136/07, by letters dated 20 May 2015, sent by registered post to the applicant’s home and prison addresses, he was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 26   March 2014 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. The letters were received at those addresses. No response was received to the Registry’s letters. As to application no. 586/08, by letter dated 20 May 2015, sent by registered post to the applicant’s home address, he was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 8   August 2014 and that no extension of time had been requested; the applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The letter was received by the applicant’s mother who signed the receipt certificate. No response was received to the Registry’s letter. As to application no. 13627/09, on 20 May 2015 letters in similar terms were sent, by registered post, to the applicant in Novomoskovsk prison no.   6 and also, as previously requested, to his next of kin at her home address. The letters were returned to the Court because the applicant was no longer in that prison and as not claimed at the home address. As regards application no. 41936/09, the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention were communicated to the Government. Their observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit observations by 16 June 2014. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. However, in September 2014 the representative wrote to the Court asking that any decision taken by it be sent to the above address. By a strike-out warning letter dated 11 December 2014, sent by registered post, the representative was, inter alia , asked to clarify the reasons for not submitting observations. This letter was then returned to the Court as not claimed. However, in March 2015 the Court received a letter from the applicant asking that any decision taken by the Court be sent to the above address. On 17 March 2015 the Registry sent a letter to the applicant in terms similar to those in the letter of 11 December 2014. It appears that the letter was delivered. No response was received to it. THE LAW The Court decides to examine these applications jointly 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 6 July 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   2136/07 10/11/2006 Andrey Anatolyevich VASILYEV 05/03/1972 Borovichi       586/08 11/11/2007 Sergey Borisovich YANCHURKIN 16/08/1960 Novosibirsk       13627/09 29/01/2009 Sergey Valentinovich SHARDAKOV 08/08/1967 Moscow       41936/09 16/07/2009 Andrey Sergeyevich GUGLYA 23/05/1966 Krasnoyarsk   Yelena Vladimirovna VOROBOVICH