FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43332/02
by Andrey Ivanovich ATYASHEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 November 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Andrey Ivanovich Atyashev, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in the town of Shakhtyorsk in the Sakhalin Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Lisovoy, a lawyer practising in Shakhtyorsk. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In December 2000, February and March 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of his involvement in several theft cases and was allegedly beaten up.
On 24 April 2001 the investigator with the Uglegorsk town prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against the police officers in connection with the applicant’s complaint about several episodes of ill-treatment and unlawful detention.
By decision of 29 July 2002, the investigator rejected the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment as unfounded and discontinued the proceedings.
On 15 October 2002 the regional prosecutor’s office revoked the above decision and ordered the investigator to carry out a further inquiry.
On 15 November 2002 the applicant was advised that the investigation had been suspended because of the failure to establish the culprits.
There is no indication that the applicant challenged the decision of 15 November 2002 before the domestic courts or complained to them about the alleged unlawfulness of any of the periods of his detention.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention that he had been repeatedly beaten up and unlawfully detained and that the investigation of the alleged ill-treatment had been ineffective.
THE LAW
By letter dated 20 March 2007, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 22 May 2007.
By letter dated 2 August 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 22 May 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’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. According to the acknowledgement-of-receipt card, two unsuccessful attempts were made to deliver the letter to the applicant’s representative. The letter was returned to the Court as “unclaimed”.
By letter dated 10 October 2007, sent by registered post to the applicant’s home address, he was invited to confirm, by 13 November 2007, whether he intended to pursue the proceedings before the Court. The letter was delivered on 1 November 2007. No reply followed.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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