CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 avril 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DFDBCC7 { width:188.96pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s61540776 { height:54.4pt } .s76DF4627 { height:60.4pt } .sFB0FE089 { height:72.55pt }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 37035/06 Sergey Aleksandrovich DOTSKOV against Russia and 7 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15   April   2014 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Julia Laffranque,   Erik Møse, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in Appendix below, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by, Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. All applicants except one (application no. 46975/06) complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they had been unfairly convicted as a result of entrapment by the police. The applicant in application no.   46975/06 complained under Article 6 § 1 that he was not given an opportunity to examine witnesses against him. The applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter from any of the applicants. The Registry attempted to contact the applicants individually, as set out below. Their 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 8 October 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 37035/06 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 22 May 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The delivery of letter failed due to the applicant’s absence at the address communicated by him to the Court. He did not inform the Court of the change of his address. No correspondence has been received from him thereafter. By letter dated 8 October 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 46975/06 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 22 May 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant received this letter on 8   November 2013. However, he failed to respond. By letter dated 5 September 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 6226/07 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 14 May 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant received this letter on 7   October 2013. However, he failed to respond. By letter dated 5 September 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 54449/07 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 12 June 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The delivery of this letter failed due to the applicant’s absence at the addresses communicated by him to the Court. He did not inform the Court of the change of his address. No correspondence has been received from him thereafter. By letter dated 2 September 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 46227/07 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 10 June 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant received this letter on 26 September 2013. However, he failed to respond. By letter dated 2 September 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 42616/08 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 12 June 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant received this letter on 3   October 2013. However, he failed to respond. By letter dated 29 August 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 18561/09 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 22 May 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant received this letter on 18 September 2013. However, he failed to respond. By letter dated 28 August 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant in application no. 55519/09 was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 16 July 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant received this letter on 12 September 2013. However, he failed to respond. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. André Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   37035/06 09/06/2006 Sergey Aleksandrovich DOTSKOV 05/04/1968 Chelyabinsk       46975/06 20/10/2006 Aleksandr Yakovlevich SOVERSHENNYY 17/06/1956 Novopavlovsk       6226/07 23/01/2007 Ilya Viktorovich FRANTSUZOV 25/07/1981 Penza   Aleksey Viktorovich AVKSENTYEV   46227/07 17/09/2007 Anatoliy Vyacheslavovich SMIRNOV 19/12/1973 Izhevsk       54449/07 07/11/2007 Dmitriy Yevgenyevich ROGOV 20/10/1969 Volgograd       42616/08 24/07/2008 Vitaliy Petrovich SAZONOV 25/09/1972 Kaliningrad   Sergey Nikolayevich TARASYUK   18561/09 16/02/2009 Viktor Yuryevich MANYAKHIN 30/03/1974 Shakhty       55519/09 07/09/2009 Azat Danisovich VALEYEV 02/02/1988 Ufa