FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13606/05
by Yevgeniy Petrovich GALKIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 February 2005,
Having regard to the Court's decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Petrovich Galkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and lived before his arrest in the town of Petrozavodsk in the Kareliya Republic. He was represented before the Court by
Mr M. Shogin, a lawyer practising in Petrozavodsk. The respondent Government were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, 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 15 July 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated murder and robbery. Four days later the Petrozavodsk Town Court authorised his detention. On 31 August 2004 the applicant retained Mr Shogin as his counsel. The applicant's detention was extended on a number of occasions with a reference to the gravity of the charges and the applicant's liability to abscond, re-offend and pervert the course of justice.
In September 2004 the investigator refused leave for a visit by the applicant's mother and his female partner, alleging investigatory discretion to authorise visits.
On 22 April 2005 the Supreme Court of the Kareliya Republic found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment. On 29 August 2006 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment, endorsing the reasons given by the trial court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand, restriction of family visits, impossibility to appeal against the investigator's decision to that effect, various procedural violations committed by the domestic courts during proceedings in which detention matters had been determined, unlawful composition of the trial court, and incorrect assessment of evidence and application of the domestic law by the domestic courts.
THE LAW
On 16 September 2008 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 16 January 2009 the Government's observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 21 January 2009 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 25 March 2009.
On 26 February 2009 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 25 March 2009, on 11 July 2009 the Court sent a letter by registered mail to the applicant's lawyer, advising him that the failure to submit the observations might result in the strike-out of the application. No response followed.
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. His lawyer subsequently received a reminder thereof. He was also informed about a consequence of the failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom 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 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