FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2633/03
by Vladimir Mikhaylovich BELKOVSKIY
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Javier Borrego Borrego,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 December 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Mikhaylovich Belkovskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Novogrodovka. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
The facts of the case, as submitted by thee parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 10 November 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of an aggravated traffic violation, hooliganism and rape. On 15 November 1995, after the search of the applicant’s apartment, he was charged with the illegal possession of firearm ammunition.
On 14 February 1996 the pre-trial investigation into these charges was completed and the applicant’s case was remitted to the Novogrodovka Town Court (Новогродівський міський суд) for consideration on the merits.
On 21 May 1996, while the trial was pending, the applicant escaped from the Selidovskyy Centre for Temporary Detention (Селіводівський ізолятор тимчасового тримання).
On 30 May 1996 the Novogrodovka Town Court suspended the proceedings in the case and put the applicant on the list of wanted persons.
On 10 December 2001 the applicant was arrested in Kyiv.
On 19 February 2002 the applicant’s case-file together with a new bill of indictment was sent to the Novogrodovka Town Court for trial.
On 20 May 2002 the Novogrodovka Town Court found that the evidence gathered against the applicant was insufficient. In particular, the court noted that it was not possible to hear several witnesses and victims as the police had failed to establish their whereabouts. The court ordered further investigations and decided – without stating any grounds – that the applicant should remain in detention on remand.
The prosecution appealed. On 19 July 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Донецької області) quashed this decision and remitted the case for further judicial consideration.
On 6 October 2003 the Novogrodovka Town Court convicted the applicant of hooliganism, rape and the escape from prison, and acquitted him of the remaining charges. It sentenced the applicant to eight years’ imprisonment less the time spent in detention on remand.
The applicant appealed. Between October 2003 and July 2004 the applicant familiarised himself with the content of the case-file.
On 30 August 2004, after four hearings during which several witnesses were heard, the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence.
On 18 January 2005 the Supreme Court (Верховний Суд України) rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation against the above decisions.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand. The applicant also complained about the unfairness and unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him. He invoked Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
Notice of the application was given to the Government on 13 April 2006. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaint on 17 July 2006. The applicant has failed to submit observations in reply. Moreover, he has failed to respond to further communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 4 January 2007 warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list if he failed to respond. No reply was received to it.
In these circumstances and in the absence of any indication that the applicant himself wishes to pursue the application, the Court, having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 further examination of this case. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy