FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17383/04
by Amir Dyrtykovich DULUSH and Others
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 December 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
	Christos Rozakis, President,
	Nina Vajić,
	Anatoly Kovler,
	Khanlar Hajiyev,
	Dean Spielmann,
	Sverre Erik Jebens,
	George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicants, Mr Amir Dyrtyk-oolovich Dulush, Mr Orlan Kan‑oolovich Lamazhyk, Mr Aleksandr Kyzyl-oolovich Barynmaa and Mr Valeriy Nachyn-oolovich Tyulyush, are Russian nationals who were born in 1970, 1965, 1972 and 1971 respectively and who are currently serving terms of imprisonment in the Republic of Tyva. They were represented before the Court by Mr S. Damdyn, a lawyer practising in Kyzyl. The respondent Government were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicants complained under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention about the alleged unlawfulness and length of their detention on remand and under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them and lack of an effective domestic remedy in this respect.
On 4 September 2008 the Court gave notice of the present application to the respondent Government.
On 16 January 2009 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received, and on 21 January 2009 the applicants were invited to submit their written observations in reply by 24 March 2009.
By letter dated 24 February 2009 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that he had difficulties in making the submissions on behalf of the applicants in English.
By letter of 15 April 2009 the applicants’ representative was informed that the applicants had been granted leave to use the Russian language in the written proceedings before the Court in accordance with Rule 34 § 3 of the Rules of Court. The time-limit for submission of the applicants’ observations on the admissibility and merits of the case was extended until 27 May 2009. No response followed.
By letter dated 8 September 2009, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 27 May 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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.
By letter dated 24 November 2009 the applicants’ representative once again informed the Court that he had difficulties in making submissions on behalf of the applicants in English.
On 18 December 2009 the Registry sent to the representative, by registered post, a copy of its letter of 15 April 2009.
By letter dated 14 April 2010 the applicants’ representative for the third time informed the Court that he had difficulties in making submissions on behalf of the applicants in English.
By letter dated 10 May 2010, sent by registered post, the Registry once again informed the representative that the applicants had been granted leave to make their submissions in Russian. The applicants’ attention was once again drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Registry further enclosed an unofficial translation of its correspondence. No response followed.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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 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.
	Søren Nielsen	Christos Rozakis
	Registrar	President