FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 73223/01
by Sergey ANTIPOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25 March 2004 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrG. Bonello,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 12 January 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Yevgenyevich Antipov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Khabarovsk. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Cheshulko, a lawyer practising in Khabarovsk. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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 17 August 1999 the applicant was arrested and placed in custody.
On 22 June 2000 the investigator decided that the preliminary investigation had been completed and that the accused, including the applicant, could start examining the case files. On 27 June 2000 the applicant received seven volumes of his case file.
On 17 July 2000 the case file was transferred to the Khabarovsk Regional Court. The applicant submits that he did not have sufficient time to study the case file.
On 3 August 2000 the Khabarovsk Regional Court remitted the case for additional investigation. The applicant filed several applications for release pending trial. On 25 August and 13, 16 and 24 October 2000 his applications were refused by the deputy prosecutor of the Khabarovsk Region. The refusals referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant.
On 24 October 2000 the applicant and his co-accused were notified that the preliminary investigation had been completed and that they could proceed to study the file.
On 28 November 2000 the Khabarovsk Regional Court remitted the case for additional investigation. According to the applicant, no appeal was filed against the decision of 28 November 2000 and on 18 December 2000 the case was transferred to the prosecutor of the Khabarovsk Region for additional investigation. The period of the applicant's detention on remand duly approved by the Prosecutor General's office expired on 20 November 2000. However, he remained in custody even though no extension of his detention had been granted. The applicant challenged the lawfulness of his detention in court.
On 14 February 2001 the Kirovskiy District Court of Khabarovsk dismissed the applicant's complaint. The applicant appealed against the decision to the Khabarovsk Regional Court.
On 27 March 2001 the prosecutor of the Khabarovsk Region extended the applicant's detention on remand until 27 April 2001.
On 2 April 2001 the preliminary investigation was completed and the applicant began to study the case file.
On 3 April 2001 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 14 February 2001.
On 27 April 2001 the case was referred to the Khabarovsk Regional Court.
On 14 May 2001 the Khabarovsk Regional Court remitted the case for additional investigation. On 5 July 2001 the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation heard the prosecution's appeal and upheld the decision of 14 May 2001.
On 24 July 2001 a senior investigator of the Khabarovsk Regional prosecutor's office received the case file from the Khabarovsk Regional Court. On the same day the prosecutor of the Khabarovsk Region extended the applicant's detention on remand for one month, i.e. until 24 August 2001.
Some time in August 2001 the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation extended the applicant's detention on remand until 24 October 2001.
On 3 September 2001 the investigator in the applicant's case ordered his release from custody on the applicant's undertaking not to leave the town. The decision was based on the fact that the investigation had been completed and that the applicant had a permanent residence and place of work and no previous criminal record.
On 23 July 2002 an investigator of the Khabarovsk Regional prosecutor's office dropped several charges against the applicant because no evidence in their support could be found.
According to the information of the Government, on 25 December 2003 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Khabarovsk delivered its judgment on the merits of the remaining charges against the applicant. A copy of the judgment was not made available to the Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that his arrest on 17 August 1999 could not reasonably be considered necessary to prevent his absconding or obstructing the establishment of truth. The applicant specifically complained that between 18 December 2000 and 26 March 2001 his detention was unlawful because no extension of the detention period had been authorised.
The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in that the national authorities justified his initial detention, as well as subsequent extensions, with reference only to the gravity of the charge against him, which, in his opinion, amounted to a presumption of his guilt.
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the unreasonable time that elapsed before his trial because the national court on three occasions remitted the case for additional investigation on account of the applicant's failure to examine the case file in full.
Finally, the applicant raised a complaint under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention alleging that he has not been given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence.
THE LAW
On 8 January 2004 the applicant and his representative submitted to the Court a written statement to the effect that he wanted to withdraw his application because a settlement with the respondent Government had been reached.
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 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 the case 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 strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy