CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 septembre 2017

.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 } .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 } .s393990F0 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s470A7AE1 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s74FD211E { width:197.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 65485/11 Viktor Borisovich KRYUCHKOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting 5   September 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 application lodged on 27 September 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Viktor Borisovich Kryuchkov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Murom. The applicant’s complaint under Article 7 of the Convention was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”), who were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. In 2014 the Government did not submit observations but wanted a friendly settlement in the case. By letter dated 26 May 2014 the applicant was asked whether he was interested in reaching a friendly settlement. No reply to this letter has been received. In July 2015 a letter was sent by registered mail to the applicant’s PO box address in Moscow and to his home address in Murom, noting the implicit refusal of a friendly settlement and asking him to submit observations. The letter to the home address was received by the applicant who signed the receipt certificate on 18 August 2015. On 6 October 2015 the applicant submitted observations and claims for just satisfaction, from an address in Vyazma, and mentioned that he had not received the letter of 26 May 2014. Noting that “the Court had not raised any specific question before the parties”, the applicant made submissions about various matters relating, in substance, to Article 6 of the Convention. As it appeared from the applicant’s submissions that he had not received the correspondence from the Court in 2014, by letter of 12   October 2015 sent to his most recent address (in Vyazma), the applicant was provided again with the communication correspondence; he was requested to submit, by 14 December 2015, his observations and claims for just satisfaction in relation to the communicated issue and to provide an answer to the question raised by the Court before the parties; the applicant was also asked whether he wanted to conclude a friendly settlement; lastly, he was required to specify which of his addresses was to be used for the correspondence from the Court. No response has been received to this letter. By letters dated 14 February 2017, sent by registered post to the applicant’s addresses in Vyazma and Murom, he was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations and claims for just satisfaction had expired on 14   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. The letter to the applicant’s address in Vyazma returned to the Court on 19   April 2017 as not claimed. The letter to the home address in Murom was received by the applicant who signed the receipt certificate in March 2017. No response has been received to the Court’s letter. 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 28 September 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Luis López Guerra Deputy Registrar   President