FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15602/03
by Dmitriy Konstantinovich BLINOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 May 2003,
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 Dmitriy Konstantinovich Blinov, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Yekaterinburg. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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 31 August 2001 the applicant was brought to a police station in Yekaterinburg where police officers allegedly boxed and kicked him. On the same day his detention on remand was authorised on suspicion that he had trafficked drugs. The detention was extended on several occasions on the ground of the severity of the charges and the applicant’s liability to abscond.
On 30 June 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg released the applicant on a written undertaking not to leave the town. On 21 July 2003 the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued. On 27 November 2003 the District Court upheld the decision of 21 July 2003, noting the applicant’s consent to the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings. On 30 April 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s leave to appeal against the decision of 27 November 2003 because he had missed the time-limit for lodging an appeal and had not indicated any valid reason for doing so.
The applicant’s mother complained to the prosecutor of the Oktyabrskiy District that the applicant had been ill-treated in the police station on 31 August 2001. Criminal proceedings against the policemen were instituted. The proceedings were closed and re-opened a number of times. It appears that the most recent decision was issued on 14 July 2006.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 3, 5 § 3, 6 § 3 (b) and 13 of the Convention that he had been beaten up on 31 August 2001, that his detention had been extended without any valid reasons and that he had not been timeously provided with the case-file.
THE LAW
On 27 March 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 27 April 2006 the Court received a letter from the applicant’s brother, Mr B. He informed the Court that the applicant had appointed him to act as his representative and asked to grant the applicant free legal aid in connection with the presentation of his case before the Court. In response, the Court apprised the applicant of Rule 36 § 4 (a) of the Rules of Court, by virtue of which a representative acting on behalf of the applicant pursuant to the Rules of Court should be an advocate authorised to practise in any of the Contracting Parties and resident in the territory of one of them, or any other person approved by the President of the Chamber. The Court inquired the applicant whether his brother was a lawyer and asked to provide documents certifying that assertion. The Court also asked him to provide a power of authority.
On 20 July 2006 the Court received a fax from Mr M. who stated that he was a lawyer practicing in the Sverdlovsk Region and he intended to represent the applicant before the Court. Mr M. also enclosed a copy of his advocate’s identity card. The power of authority was not included.
On the same day the Court asked the applicant to confirm his intention to be represented by Mr M. and to provide the Court with the power of authority.
On 7 August 2006 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 21 August 2006 the Court asked the applicant to submit written observations by 23 October 2006.
On 28 August 2006 the Court received a letter from the applicant’s brother. As it appeared from the letter, the applicant intended to submit the power of authority in the nearest future.
On 9 October 2006 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 23 October 2006, on 29 January 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application.
The applicant did not reply.
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. A number of times the Court also tried to clarify an issue concerning the applicant’s representation in the Strasbourg proceedings. The only responses the Court received were from the applicant’s brother and a certain lawyer, Mr M., who were not properly authorised to act on the applicant’s behalf. The applicant did not respond to the Court’s request to appoint a representative and provide a power of authority. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application (cf. Ivanchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6026/00, 7 February 2006). 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.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy