FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37703/04
by Vladimir Viktorovich GALITROV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 December 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 August 2004,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Viktorovich Galitrov, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in the town of Elista, the Republic of Kalmykiya. He is represented before the Court by Ms L.V. Spirina, a lawyer practising in Elista.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
It appears that in January 2000 the applicant was involved in an incident with a third person as a result of which that third person registered a criminal complaint against the applicant.
On 25 July 2000 the Elistinskiy Town Court of the Republic of Kalmykiya (“the Town Court”) convicted the applicant of aggravated theft, threat of murder and trespass and sentenced him cumulatively to four years and six months of imprisonment. Having noted that the applicant had been taken into custody in connection with this criminal investigation on 15 March 2000, the court decided that the applicant’s term of imprisonment should start running as of that date.
On 5 September 2000 the first instance judgment was essentially upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykiya which reduced the applicant’s sentence of imprisonment to three years and six months.
Having served the entirety of his sentence of imprisonment in penitentiary establishment OL-27/2 in the village of Yashkul of the Republic of Kalmykiya, the applicant was released on 29 September 2003.
In the meantime, on 17 October 2002 the applicant applied to the Yashkulskiy Distict Court, asking the court to apply an amnesty law in respect of the charges of which he had been convicted.
On 6 May 2004 the District Court decided that the amnesty law was in fact applicable in his case in respect of the charges of threat of murder and trespass and that in so far as the remaining charge of aggravated theft was concerned the original sentence of three years in respect of that charge had to remain in force.
It appears that this decision was not appealed against and ten days later it came into force.
Thereafter the applicant applied to a court for compensation in respect of the additional six months which he had spent in prison.
On 29 June 2004 the Town Court examined the applicant’s claims and partly granted them. The court ordered the authorities to pay the applicant 10,000 Russian roubles (approximately 300 euros (EUR)) in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result.
On 5 August 2004 the Supreme Court examined the case on appeal and quashed the judgment of 29 June 2004. By the same decision the court dismissed the applicant’s claims in full as having no basis in law.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 14 and 41 of the Convention that the last six months of his imprisonment had been unlawful and that the authorities had refused to compensate him in this connection.
THE LAW
By letters of 15 July and 20 September 2011 the respondent Government informed the Court that the applicant had accepted to withdraw the application against payment of EUR 27,270 in respect of the damage sustained. They also submitted a copy of the agreement to that effect.
By a letter dated 27 October 2011 the applicant and his lawyer confirmed the applicant’s consent to the settlement of the case and the validity of the agreement. They therefore requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases accordingly.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties and that the applicant therefore does not intend to pursue the application. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenNina Vajić
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy