CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 avril 2018

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s94AD5A1 { width:202.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 21535/16 S.S. against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10   April 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 April 2016, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, S.S., is a Syrian national, who was born in 1992 and had lived in Syria before he came to Russia in 2014. The President granted the applicant’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He was represented before the Court by Mr M.V. Kushpel, lawyer practising in Moscow and Volgograd. The Russian Government (“the Government”) 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. The applicant complained about his expulsion to Syria ordered by the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow on 26 November 2015. In the letter of 6 April 2016, received on 20 April 2016 by the Court, the applicant requested the Court to prevent his removal to Syria. On 20 April 2016 the Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicated to the Russian Government that the applicant should not be removed to Syria until further notice. It was also decided to grant the application priority under Rule 41. On 26 April 2016 the applicant was informed by the domestic authorities that he had been granted temporary asylum in Russia until 26 August 2016. On 5 September 2016 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints. On 10 January 2017 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application to the Registry of the Court. On 11 January 2017 they were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit observations in reply by 22 February 2017. No reply was received from the applicant by that date. By two letters of 31 March 2017, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was informed that further information was required from the applicant and also that the period allowed for submission of his observations in reply had expired on 22 February 2017 and that no extension of time had been requested. His 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 further information has been received from the applicant or his representative as of the date of the examination of his application. On 9 May 2017 the Registry’s letter of 11 January 2017 to the applicant’s representative was returned as unclaimed. 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 17 May 2018.   Fatoş Aracı   Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar   President