THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 53846/10 Vurgun Israfil Ogly ALIYEV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26 September 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Luis López Guerra, President, Dmitry Dedov, Jolien Schukking, judges,

and Fatoş Aracı, D eputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 August 2010,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant, Mr Vurgun Israfil Ogly Aliyev, is a Stateless national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Velikiye Luki.

2. The applicant moved over to Russia from Azerbaijan in 1993 to join his father and siblings, all of whom were Russian citizens. At some point he entered into relationship with a Russian citizen with whom he had a son in 2002. In 2005 the applicant was sentenced to seven years ’ imprisonment for drug trafficking. In 2009 he was released on parole and was ordered to register monthly with parole officer.

3. On 30 November 2009 the applicant applied for a temporary residence permit. On 18 January 2010 the Pskov Region Federal Migration Service rejected his application owing to the fact that his criminal record had not expired. The applicant was to either leave Russia within fifteen days of receipt of the letter or be deported (administratively removed).

4. On 9 February 2010, due to the applicant ’ s criminal conviction, the Russian Ministry of Justice issued an exclusion order in respect of him, which obliged him to leave the country and prohibited his re-entry until 25 October 2019.

5. The applicant ’ s court appeals against the refusal to grant the residence permit and against the exclusion order were to no avail. On 27 April 2010 the Pskov Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the refusal and the exclusion order. The court did not examine the applicant ’ s complaints concerning the adverse effect of the exclusion on his family life stating, inter alia, that his marriage to the Russian citizen was not officially registered. As for the complaint concerning the impossibility in case of deportation to fulfill his obligation to visit the parole officer, the court left it without examination.

6. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the refusal to grant him a residence permit violated his right to respect for his private and family life and that the domestic courts failed to examine the issue properly.

7. On 7 July 2016 the applicant ’ s complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. On 4 November 2016 the observations were forwarded to the applicant and he was invited to submit his observations. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

8. By letter dated 23 May 2017, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 6 January 2017 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ’ s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant refused to receive this letter on 14 July 2017. No reasons were given.

THE LAW

9. The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;

...

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

10. 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.

11. 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 19 October 2017 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Luis López Guerra              Deputy Registrar President