THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 9911/08 Nikolay Aleksandrovich SOTNIKOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 January 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 20 November 2007,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Nikolay Aleksandrovich Sotnikov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1968 and is currently in detention.

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

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in correctional facility IK-11 located in the Stavropol Region.

The applicant ’ s complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. On 5 June 2013 the observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his observations in reply by 4 September 2013.

By letter dated 16 October 2013, sent by registered mail, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired 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 ’ s contact person signed for receipt of this letter on 29 October 2013.

By letter of 3 December 2013, the applicant inquired about the state of proceedings on his application, indicating that he had not received any letters from the Court since the time he had lodged his application.

On 24 January 2014 the President decided to resend a copy of the Court ’ s letter of 5 June 2013, together with the Government ’ s observations, and to set a new time-limit for the applicant ’ s comments in reply. The time-limit was fixed for 28 March 2014.

Having received no reply from the applicant by the above time-limit, on 19 May 2014 the Court notified him again that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired and drew his attention to the provisions of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The letter was sent by registered mail and reached the applicant ’ s contact person on 18 June 2014.

By letter of 21 July 2014, the applicant ’ s contact person informed the Court that he insisted on having his application examined by the Court. No observations were submitted.

THE LAW

The Court has already considered a similar situation in the case of Dąbrowski v. Poland (dec., 34087/96, 29 January 2002), in which the applicant had disregarded the requirements of the Court ’ s procedure and had failed to comply with the time-limits set for the submission of his observations. Having regard to the fact that the applicant had never submitted his observations, despite repeated warnings advising him that the Court might apply Article 37 § 1 in his case, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of his case and decided to strike it out of the list of its cases.

The situation in the instant case is no different. Even though the applicant wishes to have his application examined by the Court, he has flouted the requirements of the proceedings before it. He did not submit his observations for more than eighteen months and, in fact, has not submitted them to the present date. Moreover, he has not put forward any reason for the failure to do so.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) 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 11 February 2016 .

Marialena Tsirli Helen Keller              Deputy Registrar President