CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 avril 2021

.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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3021EA72 { width:142.2pt; display:inline-block } .s67CC2216 { width:138.53pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 59613/18 Artur Vartkezovich MARTIROSYAN against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8   April   2021 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30   November 2018, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Artur Vartkezovich Martirosyan, a stateless person, was born in 1974 and lived in Georgiyevsk, Stavropol Region. He was represented before the Court by Ms Y.Y. Drozdova, a lawyer practising in Georgiyevsk. 2.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention that his detention pending administrative removal in 2017-2019 had been unlawful and that the domestic proceedings had not been conducted diligently. The notice of the complaint was given to the Russian Government (“the Government”) and they had submitted their observations on admissibility and merits of this case. 3.     On 18 September 2020 the representative informed the Court that the applicant died on unspecified date and that she had learned about it from the migration authorities. It transpired from the subsequent Government’s submissions that the applicant had died on 25 June 2020 from alcohol intoxication. 4.     On 19 October 2020 the applicant’s sister, Ms Anaid Zoloyeva, informed the Court that she wished to pursue his application before the Court. It appears from her further submissions that she only expressed her wish to become the applicant’s legal heir for the first time in early November 2020. 5.     On 19 January 2021 the Government objected to allowing Ms   Zoloyeva to pursue the proceedings on the applicant’s behalf and highlighted that the rights under Article 5 of the Convention are intrinsically personal and non-transferrable and that Ms Zoloyeva had not demonstrated either her kinship or her status of a legal heir at the domestic level. 6.     On 8 February 2021 the representative informed the Court that Ms   Zoloyeva had applied to a court to establish her kinship to the applicant, that it had been confirmed by the court on 23   December 2020 and that she would submit the inheritance certificate once available. 7.     There had been no further submissions in the present case. THE LAW 8.     The Court at the outset reiterates that the rights guaranteed under Article 5 of the Convention are in principle non-transferable (see, mutatis mutandis, Biç and Others v. Turkey , no. 55955/00, §§ 22-23, 2 February 2006, and Sanles Sanles v. Spain (dec.), no. 48335/99, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI) and that only in certain cases heirs of a direct victim, who had lodged an application with the Court prior to his death, could pursue the proceedings on his behalf. 9.     It is established that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see   Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.   Romania   [GC], no.   47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). 10.     The Court previously accepted a deceased applicant’s sister to pursue the proceedings when the Government had not submitted objections in this regard (see Todev v. Bulgaria (no. 31036/02, § 20, 22 May 2008) or where an applicant’s sister had demonstrate not only her status as a heir, but also active involvement in the proceedings on the national level (see Isayeva v. Azerbaijan , no. 36229/11, § 59-60, 25 June 2015). The Government in the present case contested Ms Zoloyeva’s right to pursue the application and therefore the Court must establish whether she has a sufficient interest in the case. 11.     Turning to the facts of the case, the Court notes that it was informed about the applicant’s death three months after the fact by his representatives and without any further details, even without the indication of the date of his death (see paragraph 4 above). Ms Zoloyeva informed the Court of her wish to pursue the proceedings one month later and expressed her wish to accept the applicant’s inheritance even later, in early November 2020. It must be further noted that she had had to make use of the national court proceedings to establish her relation to the late applicant and that until the present moment she had not submitted any document proving her status as the applicant’s legal heir. Lastly, it cannot be overlooked that Ms Zoloyeva had never mentioned in her submissions to the Court whether she had maintained any close contact with the applicant prior to his death, or what her interest in pursuing the present case was. 12.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that Ms Zoloyeva has failed to demonstrate any significant interest in pursuing the case on the applicant’s behalf and therefore it is appropriate to strike out the present application under Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention. 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 29 April 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli Acting Deputy Registrar   President