THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 28451/06 Andrey Valeryevich LEBEDEV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 March 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Helen Keller , President, Johannes Silvis , Alena Poláčková , judges,

and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 May 2006,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Andrey Valeryevich Lebedev , is a Russian national, who was born in 1983 and was detained in a correctional colony in Kohma , Ivanovo Region between 2005 and 2014 .

The Russia n 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 Article 6 of the Convention that he had been unfairly convicted of a drug offence incited by the police and that his plea of entrapment had not been properly examined in the domestic proceedings.

The applicant ’ s complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

On 20 May 2010 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 letter dated 2 November 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 22 July 2010 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. This letter arrived at the correctional colony, and the authorised officer signed the postal receipt. However, since no response has been received from the applicant, on 20 June 2 012 a request for factual information was sent to the Government , in order to verify that the Court ’ s letters had reached the applicant.

The Government replied that the app licant had received the letters; in support of this allegation they attached an extract from the incoming mail registration log which did not, however, contain the applicant ’ s signature. The applicant, for his part, did not react when informed of this exchange.

On 18 January 2013 the Government were asked to provide a document, signed by the applicant, acknowledging his receipt of the letters in question.

On 1 March 2013 the Government provided copies of the Court ’ s letters dated 20 May 2010 and 2 November 2010 endorsed by the applicant confirming their receipt on 16 June 2010 and 16 November 2010, respectively. The Government also provided an extract copy of the incoming mail registration log in respect of the Court ’ s letters dated 20 June 2012 and 18 January 2013, stating that those letters had been given to the applicant in sealed envelopes and that the corresponding entries of receipt had been made in the log.

On 8 March 2013 the applicant was invited to comment on these submissions, but failed to do so .

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 r espect 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 7 April 2016 .

Marialena Tsirli Helen Keller              Deputy Registrar President