THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 51145/09 Pavel Viktorovich STEKLYANOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 April 2020 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 application lodged on 26 July 2009 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Pavel Viktorovich Steklyanov , was born in 1982.

The applicant ’ s complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention about his lawyer ’ s absence from appeal hearings in his criminal case was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

On 9 January 2019 the Government informed the Registry of their intention to reach a friendly settlement with the applicant. On 5 February 2019 the applicant was invited to submit his position on the friendly settlement.

By letter of 4 March 2019 the applicant ’ s wife, Ms O. Steklyanova , informed the Registry that the applicant had died on 14 July 2017. She expressed her interest to pursue the proceedings before the Court in the applicant ’ s stead.

THE LAW

The Government submitted that the applicant ’ s wife, who also acted as his representative before the Court, had failed to comply with requirements of Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of the Court, as she notified the Court of her husband ’ s death almost two years after it had occurred. According to the Government, this amounts to abuse of the right of individual petition .

The Court has previously accepted that close relatives of applicants who have died can maintain applications that include complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic ( dec. ) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 ‑ XII; Andreyeva v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Shiryayeva v. Russia , no. 21417/04, § 8, 13 July 2006; and Horváthová v. Slovakia , no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005).

In assessing the transferability of complaints, the Court has taken into account, for example, the fact that the link between the complaints at stake and the deceased applicant was not exclusive, and that the late applicant ’ s next of kin had personally suffered consequences ( see Matviyenko v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 53664/08, 25 November 2010, with further references ).

The Court has also established that it is for the heir who wishes to pursue the proceedings before the Court to substantiate his or her standing to do so (see Belskiy v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 23593/03, 26 November 2009).

The Court observes that the applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention about his lawyer ’ s absence from appeal hearings in his criminal case .

The Court finds that such complaint is, by its nature, personal to the applicant. The applicant ’ s widow was not a party to the domestic proceedings. She also did not state that she had suffered any consequences from the alleged violation of the applicant ’ s rights (see, in so far as relevant, Matviyenko , cited above ).

Furthermore, the Court is mindful that the applicant ’ s widow (who also acted as his representative before the Court on the basis of a power of attorney dated 30 September 2015) did not actively participate in the proceedings and only approached the Court after the Government had expressed their interest in reaching a friendly settlement, almost two years after her husband ’ s death.

In view of the above, the Court is not convinced that Ms O. Steklyanova has a legitimate interest to pursue the proceedings before the Court in the applicant ’ s stead.

Furthermore, the Court does not consider that “respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols” requires the examination of the application despite the applicant ’ s death.

In these circumstances the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application and concludes, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, that the application should be struck out of its list of cases.

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 4 June 2020.

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President