CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 mars 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DFDBCC7 { width:188.96pt; display:inline-block } .sAE540E25 { width:21.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7DB8BC41 { width:183.09pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 41334/07 Sergey Nikolayevich KHALIMENDIK against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24   March 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Erik Møse,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30   July 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Sergey Nikolayevich Khalimendik, is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and is detained in Sarapul. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained, under various Convention provisions, about his alleged ill-treatment by the police and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant’s complaints under Articles   3 and 13 about the alleged ill ‑ treatment on 15   March and 5   July 2006 and the lack of effective investigation under Article   3 about the conditions of detention in the remand prison and under Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (c) and (d) about the applicant’s inability to put questions to witness N. and the applicant’s removal from the court room 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 5   November 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 7   October 2014 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. The applicant received this letter on 29   November 2014. However, no response has been received. 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 16 April 2015. André Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev   Deputy Registrar   President