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 } .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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 35627/14 Denis Yevgenyevich ROMANOV (former PETROV) against Russia 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 25   April 2014, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Denis Yevgenyevich Petrov, was born in 1990. He was represented by Ms V. Bokareva, a lawyer practising in Moscow. By letter dated 20   February 2017 the applicant informed the Court that he had changed his last name to Romanov. The Court advised the Government thereof on 14   March 2017 and will continue processing the application under the case name of Romanov v. Russia . This corresponds to the applicant’s name as referred to in the application lodged with the Court. The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention after conviction and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect) and under Articles 8 of the Convention (permanent video surveillance in detention facilities) were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). On 10 September 2020 the applicant’s representative informed the Registry that the applicant had died on 24   December 2019 and that his mother, Ms Petrova, expressed her interest in pursuing the application before the Court. THE LAW The Court must establish whether Ms Petrova has standing to pursue the application following the applicant’s death. In this connection, the Court reiterates that, where the applicant has died after the application was lodged, it has accepted 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, for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.   Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, with further references). Having examined the material submitted, the Court is unable to conclude that Ms Petrova has demonstrated sufficient interest in pursuing the present application. She does not appear to have been aware of the fact that the applicant had lodged an application with the Court. Ms Petrova informed the applicant’s representative of his death almost nine months after it, without providing, however, any explanation for a belated notification. Nor did she claim that she had suffered any consequences from the alleged violation of the applicant’s rights or that her intention to pursue the application before the Court had any moral dimension. Against this background, the Court finds that the request to pursue the proceedings was submitted by a person who has failed to provide evidence of her legitimate interest to pursue the application (see,   mutatis mutandis ,   Léger v.   France   (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 50, 30 March 2009,   Moisă v.   Romania   (dec.), no. 30608/02, 16   November 2010, and most recently, V.B. v.   Romania (dec.) [Committee], no. 71569/14, 14 December 2021). Lastly, the Court considers that respect for human rights does not require it to continue the examination of the present case. In the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention, the Court finds that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application and concludes that the application should be struck out of its list of cases. 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