THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 19405/18 Sergey Vyacheslavovich SHIROPATIN against Russia (see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 January 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli , President , Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas Zünd , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 April 2018,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Ms Y.Y. Kopayeva, a lawyer practising in Nizhniy Tagil, Sverdlovsk Region.

On 5 April 2018 the applicant died.

On 7 April 2018 the application was lodged before the Court, however the applicant’s lawyer did not mention that the applicant was already dead.

On 20 June 2018 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that the applicant had died on 5 April 2018. She argued that the applicant’s mother, Shiropatina Olga Pavlovna, wished to pursue the application on his behalf.

On 28 January 2019 Ms Shiropatina sent a letter to the Court, confirming her intention to pursue the application in the applicant’s stead.

THE LAW

The applicant complained about inadequate medical treatment in detention and lack of any effective remedy in this connection under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

The Court observes at the outset that the applicant’s representative submitted the application after the applicant’s death.

The Court reiterates that the existence of a victim of a violation, that is to say, an individual who is personally affected by an alleged violation of a Convention right, is indispensable for putting the protection mechanism of the Convention into motion (see Karner v. Austria , 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003‑IX). An application cannot be brought in the name of a deceased person, since a deceased person is unable, even through a representative, to lodge an application with the Court (see Yaşa v. Turkey , no. 22495/93, Commission’s report of 8 April 1997, § 88, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑VI, and Dupin v. Croatia (dec.), no. 36868/03, 7 July 2009).

In addition, an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if incomplete and therefore misleading information was submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006, and Basileo v. Italy (dec.), no. 11303/02, 23 August 2011).

The Court cannot lose sight of the strictly personal nature of the Article 3 right which was the focus of both the domestic proceedings and the application. The Court does not exclude that it may recognise standing in the context of complaints under Article 3 to applicants who complain about treatment concerning exclusively their late relative. It nevertheless considers that such applicants must show either a strong moral interest or other compelling reasons, such as an important general interest which requires their case to be examined (see Kaburov v. Bulgaria , No.9035/06, § 56, 19 June 2012).

In the present case, as Mr Shiropatin had died before the application was introduced, the present case should be distinguished from cases in which an applicant’s heir has been permitted to pursue an application which has already been introduced. In other words, Ms Shiropatina as the applicant’s heir cannot pursue the application in his place because he had actually never taken part in proceedings before the Court (see Poznanski v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007, and, mutatis mutandis , Karagiannis and Others v. Greece (revision), no. 51354/99, § 10, 8 July 2004).

Moreover, the applicant’s representative submitted the application after the applicant’s death and only informed the Court of this event more than two months later. The concept of “abuse”, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, must be understood as any conduct that is manifestly contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application as provided for in the Convention and that impedes the proper functioning of the Court or the proper conduct of the proceedings before it (see Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia , no. 798/05, § 65, 15 September 2009). An abuse may be committed by omission, where the applicant fails to inform the Court at the outset of a factor essential for the examination of the case (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, §§ 35-36, ECHR 2014). Therefore, by submitting the application on behalf of the dead applicant, the applicant’s representative abused the right of individual petition.

In view of the above, the Court finds that the complaints are inadmissible and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 9 February 2023.

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention

(inadequate medical treatment in detention)

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

19405/18

07/04/2018

Sergey Vyacheslavovich SHIROPATIN

1979Deceased in 2018

Kopayeva Yuta Yuryevna

Nizhniy Tagil