{"id":314,"date":"2019-04-06T20:47:20","date_gmt":"2019-04-06T20:47:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=314"},"modified":"2019-04-24T16:02:34","modified_gmt":"2019-04-24T16:02:34","slug":"kaplun-c-russie","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=314","title":{"rendered":"KAPLUN c. RUSSIE (European Court of Human Rights)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: center;\">TROISI\u00c8ME SECTION<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">D\u00c9CISION<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">Requ\u00eate no1975\/11<br \/>\nIgor Vsevolodovich KAPLUN<br \/>\ncontre la Russie<\/p>\n<p>La Cour europ\u00e9enne des droits de l\u2019homme (troisi\u00e8me section), si\u00e9geant le 17 janvier 2019 en un comit\u00e9 compos\u00e9 de\u00a0:<\/p>\n<p>Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, pr\u00e9sidente,<br \/>\nDmitry Dedov,<br \/>\nJolienSchukking, juges,<\/p>\n<p>et de Liv Tigerstedt, greffi\u00e8re adjointe de section f.f.,<\/p>\n<p>Vu la requ\u00eate susmentionn\u00e9e introduite le 16 d\u00e9cembre 2010,<\/p>\n<p>Apr\u00e8s en avoir d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9, rend la d\u00e9cision suivante\u00a0:<\/p>\n<p>FAITS ET PROC\u00c9DURE<\/p>\n<p>Le requ\u00e9rant, M. Igor VsevolodovichKaplun, est n\u00e9 en 1948.<\/p>\n<p>Il a \u00e9t\u00e9 repr\u00e9sent\u00e9 devant la Cour par MeKhodykin, avocat exer\u00e7ant \u00e0 Moscou.<\/p>\n<p>Le grief que le requ\u00e9rant tirait de l\u2019article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 de la Convention concernant l\u2019acc\u00e8s \u00e0 un tribunal a \u00e9t\u00e9 communiqu\u00e9 au gouvernement russe (\u00ab\u00a0le Gouvernement\u00a0\u00bb).<\/p>\n<p>Par une lettre recommand\u00e9e avec accus\u00e9 de r\u00e9ception du 4 octobre 2018, la Cour a attir\u00e9 l\u2019attention du requ\u00e9rant sur le fait que le d\u00e9lai imparti pour la pr\u00e9sentation de ses observations ainsi que de ses demandes de satisfaction \u00e9quitable \u00e9tait \u00e9chu depuis le 7 ao\u00fbt 2018 et qu\u2019il n\u2019en avait pas sollicit\u00e9 la prolongation. La Cour a en outre pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 que, aux termes de l\u2019article 37 \u00a7 1 a) de la Convention, elle peut rayer une requ\u00eate du r\u00f4le lorsque, comme en l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, les circonstances permettent de conclure que le requ\u00e9rant n\u2019entend plus maintenir celle-ci. La lettre a \u00e9t\u00e9 retourn\u00e9e au greffe comme non r\u00e9clam\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<p>EN DROIT<\/p>\n<p>\u00c0 la lumi\u00e8re de ce qui pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, la Cour conclut que la partie requ\u00e9rante n\u2019entend plus maintenir la requ\u00eate (article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0a) de la Convention). Par ailleurs, en l\u2019absence de circonstances particuli\u00e8res touchant au respect des droits garantis par la Convention et ses Protocoles, la Cour consid\u00e8re qu\u2019il ne se justifie plus de poursuivre l\u2019examen de la requ\u00eate, au sens de l\u2019article\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01 in fine.<\/p>\n<p>Il y a donc lieu de rayer l\u2019affaire du r\u00f4le.<\/p>\n<p>Par ces motifs, la Cour, \u00e0 l\u2019unanimit\u00e9,<\/p>\n<p>D\u00e9cide de rayer la requ\u00eate du r\u00f4le.<\/p>\n<p>Fait en fran\u00e7ais puis communiqu\u00e9 par \u00e9crit le 7 f\u00e9vrier 2019.<\/p>\n<p>Liv Tigerstedt\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1<br \/>\nGreffi\u00e8re adjointe f.f.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Pr\u00e9sidente<\/p>\n<div class=\"social-share-buttons\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer\/sharer.php?u=https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=314\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Facebook<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?url=https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=314&text=KAPLUN+c.+RUSSIE+%28European+Court+of+Human+Rights%29\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Twitter<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/shareArticle?url=https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=314&title=KAPLUN+c.+RUSSIE+%28European+Court+of+Human+Rights%29\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">LinkedIn<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/pinterest.com\/pin\/create\/button\/?url=https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=314&description=KAPLUN+c.+RUSSIE+%28European+Court+of+Human+Rights%29\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pinterest<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>TROISI\u00c8ME SECTION D\u00c9CISION Requ\u00eate no1975\/11 Igor Vsevolodovich KAPLUN contre la Russie La Cour europ\u00e9enne des droits de l\u2019homme (troisi\u00e8me section), si\u00e9geant le 17 janvier 2019 en un comit\u00e9 compos\u00e9 de\u00a0: Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, pr\u00e9sidente, Dmitry Dedov, JolienSchukking, juges, et de Liv&hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"more-link-p\"><a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=314\">Read more &rarr;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-available-in-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=314"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1964,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314\/revisions\/1964"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}