 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Pavel Anatolyevich NIKULIN v Russia - 20377/06 [2011] ECHR 1777 (4 October 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1777.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1777 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
20377/06
by Pavel Anatolyevich NIKULIN
against
Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 October 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina
Vajić,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Peer
Lorenzen,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Linos-Alexandre
Sicilianos,
Erik
Møse,
judges,
and
Søren Nielsen,
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 August 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Pavel Anatolyevich Nikulin, is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Nizhniy Tagil, Sverdlovskaya Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr R.R. Kalapov, a lawyer practising in Nizhniy Tagil. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained of a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, on account of the lack of legal assistance during the appeal hearing on his criminal case.
This application was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letters dated 7 October and 23 November 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the his observations had expired on 6 April 2010 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. No response followed.
THE LAW
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 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 Nina
Vajić
Registrar President