THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 52334/08 Yevgeniy Viktorovich PILCHUK against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 June 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Branko Lubarda , President, Pere Pastor Vilanova , Georgios A. Serghides , judges,

and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 June 2008,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Viktorovich Pilchuk , is a Russian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in the Tomsk region.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention that the refusal to grant him parental leave amounted to discrimination on grounds of sex. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the quashing of a judgment in his favour by way of supervisory-review procedure had upset legal certainty and had therefore violated his “right to a court”.

The application was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

By letters dated 20 October 2015 and 28 January 2016, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 10 August 2015 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ’ s attent ion 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 received the second letter on 19 February 2016. However, no response has been received.

THE LAW

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 30 June 2016 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Branko Lubarda              Deputy Registrar President