THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 72125/14 Oleg Vladimirovich MALKHOZOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 October 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Helen Keller, President, Pere Pastor Vilanova, Alena Poláčková, judges,

and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 March 2015,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Oleg Vladimirovich Malkhozov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1970 and is currently serving a term of imprisonment in Krasnoyarsk.

The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the domestic authorities ’ decision to allocate him to a penal facility located remotely from his home in Karachayevo-Cherkessiya had adversely affected his right to family life.

On 30 August 2016 the application was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”), who were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.

The applicant failed to respond to the last Registry ’ s letter of 17 May 2017 (received on 31 May 2017), reminding him that the period allowed for submission of his observations in reply had expired on 26 April 2017 and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

On 15 September 2017 the applicant sent a letter to the Registry complaining that the Government had made a mistake regarding his first name and patronymic in the translation of their observations. He did not comment on the contents of the latter.

THE LAW

Regarding the applicant ’ s letter of 15 September 2017, the Court observes that it does not constitute the applicant ’ s observations. The Court has examined similar situations and considered that it was no longer justified to continue examination of the cases even when the applicant insisted on examination of his case, but failed to enclose the observations (see for example Sotnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 9911/08, 19 January 2016 ).

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, 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 the case.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case 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 16 November 2017 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Helen Keller              Deputy Registrar President