CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 juin 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. 6400/12 Yelena Vasilyevna ZARIPOVA against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   June 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 1 December 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Yelena Vasilyevna Zaripova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1960 and lived in Rostov-on-Don. She was represented before the Court by Ms M.R. Arutyunyan, a lawyer practising in Rostov-on-Don. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented initially by Mr Andrey Mikhailovich Fedorov, Head of the Office of the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and then by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about participation of a State prosecutor in civil proceedings between private individuals on the one side and the State authorities on the other. The applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. The observations were forwarded to the applicant by letter of 31 July 2017. The applicant was invited to submit her observations by 2 October 2017. Earlier, by letter dated 7 June 2017 (postal stamp) the applicant submitted an authority form authorising Ms M.R. Arutyunyan to act as her representative in the proceedings before the Court. By letter of 2 October 2017 Ms M.R. Arutyunyan informed the Court that in view of the changes in the applicant’s family situation, her husband’s death and her departure from the Rostov Region, the applicant did not intend to respond to the Court’s questions or comment on the Government’s observations. Ms M.R. Arutyunyan also indicated that the applicant had not concluded an agreement on representation of her interests before the Court. The Court was not provided with the applicant’s new address outside of the Rostov Region. By the last letter of 7 November 2017, sent by registered post, Ms   M.R.   Arutyunyan was asked to clarify whether she still acted as a representative of the applicant and if so, to inform the Court whether she maintained contact with the applicant and the time of the last contact. No deadline for a response was set in the Court’s letter. The attention of Ms   M.R.   Arutyunyan was also 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 was delivered to the addressee on 6 December 2017, however, no reply has been given to the Registry’s letter. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention (see V.M. and Others v. Belgium [GC], no. 60125/11, 17 November 2016, §§ 35-41). 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 June 2018.   Fatoş Aracı   Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar   President