POLUFAKIN v. RUSSIA

 
 
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11316/10
Sergey Anatolyevich POLUFAKIN
against Russia
 
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 May 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 February 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Sergey Anatolyevich Polufakin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Naberezhnye Chelny.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b)-(d) of the Convention that the national courts had examined his case in his absence and that, as a result, he had been unable to defend himself in person, to examine witnesses for the prosecution, to challenge evidence and to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf.
On 3 October 2017 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These were forwarded on 6 October 2017 to the applicant, who was invited to submit observations in reply by 8 December 2017. The applicant did not respond.
By letter dated 9 July 2018, sent by registered post, 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.
On 10 August 2018 the applicant received the Court’s letter of 9 July 2018.
On 31 October 2018 the applicant informed the Court that he intended to pursue the application. He did not submit any observations.
THE LAW
The Court has already considered a situation, in which the applicants, who wished to have their applications examined by the Court, had disregarded the requirements of the Court’s procedure and had failed to comply with the time-limits set for the submission of the observations (see Sotnikov v. Russia (dec.), [Committee], no. 9911/08, 19 January 2016; Kokovikhin v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 61525/14, 30 March 2017; and Tenditnaya v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], 53702/09, 5 June 2018). Having regard to the fact that the applicants in the above mentioned cases had not submitted their observations, despite the warnings advising them that the Court might apply Article 37 § 1 in their respective cases, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the cases and decided to strike them 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 disregarded the requirements of the proceedings before it. He did not comply with the time-limit set forth for the submission of his observations. Nor did he account for such omission on his part.
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 13 June 2019.
Fatoş AracıAlena Poláčková
Deputy RegistrarPresident
 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy