FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 51496/08
Aleksandr Vasilyevich ZHUKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 March 2012 as a Committee composed of:
	Peer Lorenzen, President,
	Elisabeth Steiner,
	Julia Laffranque, judges
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 July 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Vasilyevich Zhukov, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in the Rostov region. 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 under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not been duly apprised of the appeal hearing of 16 May 2008 and as a result the Rostov Regional Court examined his appeal against the judgment of 20 February 2008 in his absence.
The applicant’s complaints were 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 letter dated 6 October 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 14 December 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 has been received from the applicant.
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.
	André Wampach	Peer Lorenzen
	Deputy Registrar	President