FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42013/02
by Semen Vladimirovich MATYUSHKIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
	Christos Rozakis, President,
	Nina Vajić,
	Anatoly Kovler,
	Elisabeth Steiner,
	Khanlar Hajiyev,
	Dean Spielmann,
	Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 October 2002,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Semen Vladimirovich Matyushkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1983 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Orenburg Region. He is represented before the Court by Ms S. Davydova, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant and a Mr K. were arrested on suspicion of murder. K. accused the applicant of having stabbed the victim with a knife. The proceedings in respect of K. were discontinued.
On 30 January 2002 the Orenburg Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seventeen years’ imprisonment. K. was not heard at the trial.
On 2 February 2002 K. admitted to the police having stabbed the victim in the applicant’s murder case. On 2 March 2002 a prosecutor decided not to charge K. because under judgment of 30 January 2002 that murder had been committed by the applicant and his guilt had been sufficiently proven.
The applicant appealed against the judgment of 30 January 2002 contending that K. had not been heard and that he had confessed.
On 17 May 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant’s conviction.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts had wrongly assessed the facts, misapplied the law and had failed to examine K.
THE LAW
The Court, having regard to the events that occurred after the notice of the application had been given to the Russian Government and after they had submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, considers that it does not have to examine the present application and that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied. That provision, in its relevant part, reads:
“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.”
In this respect the Court notes that on 19 February 2007 the Registry informed the applicant that notice of the application had been given to the respondent Government. On 31 May 2007 the Registry sent the Government’s observations to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 2 August 2007. On 8 August 2007 the Court granted the applicant’s representative’s request to extend the above time limit by 2 September 2007. By letter dated 9 October 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 2 September 2007 and that no extension of the time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’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 Court received no further correspondence from the applicant or his representative.
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 respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In 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.
	Søren Nielsen	Christos Rozakis
	Registrar	President