THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 15573/18 Dmitriy Sergeyevich PAVLOV 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 29 March 2018,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Sergeyevich Pavlov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1981 and was detained in St Petersburg. He was represented before the Court by Ms O. Stasyuk (who subsequently changed her last name to Arko), a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

On 30 April 2020 the Court (Third Section) sitting as a Committee, delivered a decision in a group of cases, which included the current application and concerned the inadequate conditions of detention (see Kirillov and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 77369/17 and 12 others, 30 April 2020). The Court took note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties and decided to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 on the basis of the applicant ’ s agreement to the terms of a unilateral declaration submitted by the Government and offering to pay the applicant the amount of 6,750 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

The applicant ’ s formal agreement to the terms of the unilateral declaration (reply form), personally signed and dated 6 March 2019, was received by the Court on 15 March 2019. There were no prison stamps on the envelope and the address of the bar association ( Severnaya Stolitsa ) of the applicant ’ s representative was indicated in the return address field.

On 22 September 2020 the Government made a request to restore the application to the Court ’ s list of cases after the applicant ’ s mother informed them of his death on 26 February 2019. They provided a copy of her letter asking them to transfer the award made by the Court to her bank account and a copy of the applicant ’ s death certificate. The Government noted that the applicant had died before the delivery of the decision in case of Kirillov and Others and before the date when he had allegedly signed and dispatched his reply to the Government ’ s declaration and that no legal heir had manifested intention to join the proceedings in the applicant ’ s place.

On 19 November 2020 the Court decided, under Rule 43 § 5 of the Rules of the Court, to disjoin the current application from the other applications decided by the Court in the case of Kirillov and Others and to restore it to the Court ’ s list of cases. The parties were notified of the Court ’ s decision.

On 20 November 2020 the applicant ’ s representative was requested to provide an explanation by 4 January 2021 concerning the signature of the applicant on the reply form. She did not submit any comments in this regard.

THE LAW

The Court does not consider it necessary to address the question as to the locus standi of the applicant ’ s mother in the proceedings before it because the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see, among other authorities, Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014) or if misleading information was submitted to the Court (see Sevruk v. Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], no.2714/11, 16 June 2020, with further references). According to the Rules of Court, a representative bears a particular responsibility not to make misleading submissions (see Rule 44D of the Rules of Court).

The Court notes that the application was initially struck out on 30 April 2020 on the basis of the reply form, which the applicant, allegedly, had personally signed on 6 March 2019. Since the applicant had died on 26 February2019 he obviously could not have signed the reply form in question.

The Court finds that the reply form, which bore a signature that was purportedly that of the deceased, but had been signed only after his death, must have been forged.

In the absence of any plausible explanation from the applicant ’ s representative the Court could not but assume, that she must have been aware of the applicant ’ s death. Therefore, the Court finds that by failing to inform the Court about the applicant ’ s death and submitting the reply form which bore the applicant ’ s falsified signature, Ms O. Stasyuk (Arko) intended to mislead the Court on the matter that was particularly important for the outcome of the applicant ’ s case.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the conduct of the applicant ’ s representative constituted an abuse of the right of application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 29 April 2021 .

             {signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli Acting Deputy Registrar President