CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 novembre 2019

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F88BEDC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE330DFD7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEA321EE2 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sE8D23146 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s69AE3175 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sEA7BCE7D { border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 41388/07 Yevgeniy Yuryevich SVINTAKOV against Russia and 5 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14   November 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting 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 The list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about ill-treatment in State custody and absence of an effective investigation into the matter were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”), who submitted 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 respective letters. By letters dated 5 February 2019, sent by registered post, the applicants or their relatives (as regards application no. 19147/08) were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations   had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. Their attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. However, no response has been received. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. As regards application no. 19147/08, the Court notes that the applicant died after having lodged his application to the Court. On 5 February 2019 the Registry sent a letter to the applicant’s relatives requesting them to indicate to the Court whether there was any heirs who wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court. No reply has been received by the Court (see appendix for more details). As regards the remaining applications, the Court reiterates that under Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application. The Court considers that the applicants’ failure to inform the Registry about the developments in their cases, the change of their respective addresses, and the absence of any correspondence from them despite the Court’s requests and warnings, indicate that they have lost interest in their complaints and 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 these cases. Accordingly, the cases should be struck 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 5 December 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (ill-treatment in State custody and absence of an effective investigation)     No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Notes 1 41388/07 Svintakov v.   Russia 30/08/2007 Yevgeniy Yuryevich SVINTAKOV 12/04/1974 Orsk Russian Olga Aleksandrovna SADOVSKAYA Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence including a strike-out warning dated 20 January 2019 2 19147/08 Lavrentyev v.   Russia 15/03/2008 Vladimir Ivanovich LAVRENTYEV 02/11/1964 Aleksandriyskaya Russian   The applicant has died; failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence, including a strike-out warning of 5 February 2019, by his heirs 3 3294/10 Vokhmyanin v.   Russia 14/12/2009 Aleksandr Vladislavovich VOKHMYANIN 14/07/1981 Vostochnyy Russian   Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence since October 2018, including a strike-out warning dated 5 February 2019 4 46091/10 Fesik v.   Russia 17/06/2010 Aleksey Ivanovich FESIK 26/01/1978 Krasnoyarsk Russian   Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence since October 2018, including a strike-out warning dated 5 February 2019 5 33037/13 Dergachev v.   Russia 26/04/2013 Igor Mikhaylovich DERGACHEV 26/06/1986 Izhevsk Russian   Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence including a strike-out warning dated 5 February 2019 6 48841/13 Zaloznyy v.   Russia 20/06/2013 Viktor Anatolyevich ZALOZNYY 12/06/1977 Aleksandriyskaya Russian Anatoliy Viktorovich CHERNOV Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence since October 2018, including a strike-out warning dated 5 February 2019