FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45118/04
by Aleksey Yuryevich VAZHENIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 October 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksey Yuryevich Vazhenin, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and lives in the village of Yetkul in the Chelyabinsk Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 November 2003 the police apprehended the applicant and his brother and took them to a nearby police station where they were allegedly severely beaten up. They spent the night at the police station and were released on the following morning.
Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. He was charged with having resisted lawful orders of police officers.
On 28 May 2004 the Yetkulskiy District Court of the Chelyabinsk Region found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years and ten months’ imprisonment.
On 9 September 2004 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal, citing the reasons given by the District Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the ill-treatment on 21 November 2003 and the State’s failure to punish the responsible officials and under Article 6 of the Convention about procedural violations committed by State authorities in the course of the criminal proceedings.
THE LAW
On 12 June 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 8 August 2007 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 17 August 2007 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 19 October 2007.
On 4 September 2007 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 19 October 2007, on 22 January 2008 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 22 January 2008 reached the applicant on 5 February 2008. No response followed.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court notes that the applicant was requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.
In these circumstances it considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
André WampachChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy