CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 octobre 2022

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BBB3D96 { width:111.82%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sAEEB25D2 { width:6.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D625803 { width:34.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB6BD3DA7 { width:17.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s43D2CA1F { width:17.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE6B15E7F { width:24.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s906D09D5 { width:6.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB7C66F9A { width:34.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA0BDD10A { width:17.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEF05FEE { width:17.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s50176368 { width:24.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 1275/17 Georgiy Aleksandrovich MARKELOV and Others against Russia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President,   Andreas Zünd ,   Frédéric Krenc , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24   December 2016, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented by Mr A. Vinogradov, a lawyer practising in Kostroma. The applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning conditions of their administrative detention and fairness of administrative proceedings 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 letter. By letter dated 22 March 2021, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations   had expired on 15 January 2021 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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. On 24 March 2021 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that Mr Lebedev had expressed his wish to pursue the application. However, no observations on his behalf have been submitted. On   9   November 2021 the applicants’ representative informed the Registry that one of the applicants, Mr Napalkov, had died and that his application to the Court would not be pursued. By letter dated 25 February 2022, sent through the Court’s Electronic Communications Service (eComms), the applicants’ representative was notified again that the period allowed for submission of the observations   had expired on 15 January 2021 and that no extension of time had been requested. Furthermore, the representative was requested to confirm which applicants continued pursuing their applications, and whether there were heirs who intended to pursue the application on behalf of late Mr Napalkov. The representative was also asked to submit supporting documents. His attention was once again drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. The applicants’ representative replied on the same day with a succinct information confirming the intention of Mr   Lebedev and Mr Danilov to pursue their applications. No observations and no supporting documents were once again provided, despite the Court’s previous requests. THE LAW The Court observes that Rule 44A of the Rules of Court establishes the parties’ duty to cooperate with the Court in the conduct of the proceedings and, in particular, to take such action within their power as the Court considers necessary for the proper administration of justice. Rule 44 C lays down a possibility for the Court to draw inferences, as it deems appropriate, from a party’s failure to adduce evidence or provide information requested by it. The Court in the past has struck applications out of its list of cases for loss of interest when, inter alia , the applicants and/or persons appointed as their representative before the Court failed to respond to a request to supply information or relevant documents (see, among many other authorities, Fitzmartin and others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34953/97, 21 January 2003, and Debeljević v. Serbia (dec.), no. 30903/04, 17   March 2009) or had not complied with the Court’s request for observations (see, among many authorities, Dabrowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34087/96, 29   January 2002, and Petković v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18734/05, 14 December 2010), including by simply not giving any explanation for their failure to provide information, despite still maintaining contact with the Court (see Gülüstan   Bektaş and Others against Turkey (dec.), no. 13148/05, 29 April 2010). In the case at hand the applicants’ representative ignored the Court’s repeated requests for the observations, for the documents and additional information, having provided no explanation for his failure to cooperate. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Accordingly, the case should be struck 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 27 October 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Georgiy Aleksandrovich MARKELOV 1974 Russian Minskoye 2. Vyacheslav Yuryevich DANILIV 1962 Russian Kostroma 3. Aleksandr Aleksandrovich LEBEDEV 1970 Russian Kostroma 4. Yevgeniy Vladimirovich NAPALKOV 1959 Russian Kostroma