Search
document

Document text Analytics

GLAZKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 36741/09;24273/11;24636/11;68946/12;72140/13;38974/17 • ECHR ID: 001-202274

Document date: March 5, 2020

Inbound citations: 4
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

GLAZKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 36741/09;24273/11;24636/11;68946/12;72140/13;38974/17 • ECHR ID: 001-202274

Document date: March 5, 2020

Cited paragraphs only

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 36741/09 Mikhail Leonidovich GLAZKOV against Russia and 5 other applications (s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 5 March 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 s lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appendix.

T he applicants ’ complaints under various Convention provisions, including Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention about the outcome and fairness of the domestic proceedings as well as an alleged ill-treatment in custody 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 respective letters.

By letters sent on various dates (see the attached table) by registered post the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. Their 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. However, no response has been received.

THE LAW

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

The Court reiterates that under Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application. The Court considers that the applicants’ failure to inform the Registry about the developments in their cases, the change of their respective addresses, and the absence of any correspondence from them despite the Court’s requests and warnings, indicate that they have lost interest in their complaints and may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of these cases.

Accordingly, the case s should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications ;

Decides to strike the application s out of its list of cases.

Done in English and notified in writing on 26 March 2020 .

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant ’s name, d ate of b irth ,

p lace of r esidence and n ationality

Notes

1 .

36741/09

Glazkov v. Russia

19/06/2009

Mikhail Leonidovich GLAZKOV

08/04/1968

Polevoy

Russian

Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence since February 2019, including a strike-out warning sent on 14 June 2019.

2 .

24273/11

Sobolevskiy and Tyunina v. Russia

31/03/2011

Vladimir Nikolayevich SOBOLEVSKIY

05/12/1980

Dzerzhinsk

Russian

Lyudmila Georgiyevna TYUNINA

19/10/1959

Dzerzhinsk

Russian

Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence since February 2019, the applicant having moved out from the latest known address without providing the Court with a new one.

3 .

24636/11

Tyunin v. Russia

31/03/2011

Nikolay Vladimirovich TYUNIN

21/07/1957

Dzerzhinsk

Russian

Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence since February 2019, the applicant having moved out from the latest known address without providing the Court with a new one.

4 .

68946/12

Tikhonovskiy v. Russia

26/09/2012

Sergey Vladimirovich TIKHONOVSKIY

21/02/1961

Voronezh

Russian

Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence since February 2019, including a strike-out warning sent on 14 June 2019.

5 .

72140/13

Kolomiyko v. Russia

02/10/2013

Nikolay Petrovich KOLOMIYKO

06/02/1979

Samara

Russian

Failure to reply to the Court’s correspondence since February 2019, including a strike-out warning sent on 14 June 2019.

6 .

38974/17

Yakotsuts v. Russia

10/07/2017

Viktor Ivanovich YAKOTSUTS

06/08/1977

Tashtyp

Russian

Failure to reply to the Court’ s correspondence since February 2019, including a strike-out warning sent on 14 June 2019.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant