FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13751/05
by Salim KHARATOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 February 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Salim Khakimovich Kharatov, is a Turkmenistan national who was born in 1965 and lives in Doshaguz, Turkmenistan. He was represented before the Court by A. Shaternikov, a lawyer practising in Novgorod. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was the director of a public company in Turkmenistan. On 12 September 2003 the Turkmenistan authorities initiated a criminal case against him on the charges of abuse of office and fraud. Shortly thereafter he left Turkmenistan for Russia.
On 22 October 2004 the applicant was arrested in Novgorod. The Turkmenistan authorities requested his extradition.
On 31 January 2005 the Novgorod Town Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending extradition. On 15 February 2005 the Novgorod Regional Court upheld the detention order on appeal.
On 15 March 2005 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation decided to extradite the applicant to Turkmenistan. On 19 September 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed the extradition order in the final instance.
It appears that the applicant was extradited to Turkmenistan.
COMPLAINTS
1.  The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1-4 of the Convention that his detention pending extradition had not been based on a court order, that he had not been brought before a judge immediately after his arrest, and that the court proceedings concerning his detention had been unfair.

2.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention of the alleged unfairness of the proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention had been examined.
THE LAW
On 22 October 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 16 January 2008 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 24 March 2008.
On 26 February 2008 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by the indicated time-limit, on 23 May 2008 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. The applicant’s representative received the letter on 5 June 2008. To date he has not replied.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1.  The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a)  the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires...”
The applicant was advised that he was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He was subsequently reminded thereof. He was also informed about the consequence of his failure to submit the observations. The applicant has not replied to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, it considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.
In these circumstances the Court considers the case should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Søren Christos 
	Registrar	President