FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37912/02
by Lyudmila Vladimirovna ANGELOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 September 2002,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Lyudmila Vladimirovna Angelova, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Minsk. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives 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 26 January 2001 the applicant, who worked at the marketing department of the Minsk Tractor Plant, was sent on a business mission to Egypt for the period of two years.
On 1 February 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Republic of Belarus brought criminal proceedings against her on suspicion of bribe taking. She was recalled from her business mission. On 11 February 2002 on her way back from Egypt she was hospitalized in Moscow.
On 29 March 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Republic of Belarus charged the applicant with bribe taking and issued an order for her remand in custody.
On 10 April 2002 the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation received a request from the Belarusian authorities for the applicant's detention. On 16 April 2002 the applicant was arrested in Moscow and placed in a temporary detention facility of the Moscow Zyablikovo police department.
On 18 April 2002 the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation received the Belarusian authorities' request for the applicant's extradition.
On 24 April 2002 the applicant was transferred to detention facility IZ‑77/2 in Moscow.
On 8 May 2002 her lawyer lodged an application for the applicant's release with the Tverskoy District Court of the Central Circuit of Moscow. The hearing was listed for 21 May 2002, but was adjourned to 31 May 2002 because the prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation had not submitted documents concerning the applicant's detention.
On 27 May 2002 the applicant was extradited to Belarus where she was placed in a detention facility in Minsk.
On 6 June 2002 the Tverskoy District Court terminated the proceedings concerning the applicant's detention in Moscow under her lawyer's request.
On 11 June 2002 the applicant was released from custody.
On 30 April 2004 the criminal proceedings against her were terminated for the lack of crime.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that in view of the work which she had performed at the Minsk Tractor Plant she could not be subjected to criminal responsibility for bribe taking under the Criminal Codes of the Russian Federation and Belarus. Pursuant to the Convention on Legal Assistance in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases of the Commonwealth of Independent States, extradition on account of bringing to criminal responsibility could only be exercised in respect of acts which were criminally punishable under the laws of the requesting and requested contracting states. Therefore, her detention by the Russian authorities had allegedly been unlawful.
2. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that during the period of her detention in Russia she had not been informed of the reasons for her arrest and of the charge against her.
3. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow had delayed scheduling a hearing on her application for release, had not released her and had not examined her application.
THE LAW
By letter dated 19 July 2006 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 19 September 2006.
By letter dated 10 August 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant's observations had expired on 19 September 2006 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's husband received this letter on 17 August 2007. However, no response from the applicant has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy