CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 août 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F88BEDC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE330DFD7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 52688/15 M.B. against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29   August 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23   October 2015, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, M.B., was born in 1988 and is a Syrian national. The applicant was represented by Ms Biryukova, a lawyer practising in Podolsk. The applicant complained under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention about his fear of death and ill-treatment in case of his expulsion to Syria, lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of these complaints and unlawfulness of his detention pending expulsion. On 23 October 2015 the applicant requested the Court to prevent his removal to Syria. On the same day, the Court decided to indicate to the Russian Government (“the Government”), under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be expelled to Syria until 3   November   2015. On 2 November 2015 the Court extended the application of the interim measure for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. It was also decided that the applicant’s identity was not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).   On 28 June 2016 the application was communicated to the Government, who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who submitted his observations in reply. On 4 January 2018 the Registry sent a letter to the applicant’s representative requesting information concerning her contact with the applicant, his whereabouts and any relevant proceedings that he may have been pursuing at the time. On 5 February 2018 the applicant’s representative replied saying that she had been in contact with the applicant on 4   January   2018, that his exact whereabouts were unknown to her and that she would provide the Court with this information as soon as the applicant would get in contact with her. On 8 February 2018 she informed the Court that she had been in contact with the applicant on 7 February 2018 and that he resided in the Moscow region at the time. On 20 March 2019, the Registry sent another letter, by ordinary post and by electronic mail, to the applicant’s representative requesting information concerning her contact with the applicant, his whereabouts, any relevant proceedings that he may have been pursuing at the time and also requesting any documentary evidence capable of supporting her position. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter and no further information was provided to the Court by either the applicant or his representative. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant does not wish to pursue the 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 the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the application. Accordingly, the case should be struck 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 19 September 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President