FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 13693/05
by Nikolay Andreyevich GLINOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrR. Maruste,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 April 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Nikolay Andreyevich Glinov, is a national of Kazakhstan who was born in 1978 and is currently detained in the Odessa Detention Centre, Ukraine.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 19 October 2003 the applicant was apprehended on suspicion of theft. He was released on 21 October 2003.
On 31 October 2003 he was apprehended again. He was allegedly tortured by the police officers and forced to confess that he had been involved in several counts of robbery.
On 4 November 2003 the Malininskiy District Court of Odessa ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.
On 23 March 2006 the Malininskiy District Court of Odessa convicted the applicant of several counts of robbery and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment.
2. The applicant’s correspondence with the Court
The applicant’s letter to the Court of 30 March 2005 was accompanied by a letter, signed by the Head of the Odessa Detention Centre, which read as follows:
“Please find attached a complaint of the accused Glinov concerning his rights and the conduct of the investigation in his case”.
Ensuing similar accompanying letters contained a reference to the applicant’s case number in the proceedings before the Court and read as follows:
- Letter of 10 May 2005: “Please find attached an application of the accused Glinov concerning his case and actions of the police officers”;
- Letter of 9 June 2005: “Please find attached an application of the accused Glinov concerning actions of the police officers”;
- Letter of 12 July 2005: “Please find attached a power of attorney of the accused Glinov”;
- Letter of 15 December 2005: “Please find attached an application of the accused Glinov concerning the defence of his rights and the improvement of his detention conditions”;
- Letter of 16 May 2006: “Please find attached an application of the accused Glinov concerning the withdrawal of his case”.
3. The proceedings before the Court
On 27 May, 29 June, 22 July, 29 July, 23 August, 28 October 2005, 27 January 2006 the Registry requested the applicant to submit documents related to his complaints. The applicant failed to do so. On 24 March 2006 the Registry warned the applicant that his failure to provide the Court with the necessary information may lead to strike his case out of the list of pending cases, and requested to submit the required documents. No documents were received in reply. On 16 May 2006 the Committee decided to strike this case out of the list.Relevant domestic and international law
The relevant extract from Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine “On Detention on Remand”[1] provides as follows:
„Complaints, applications and letters of detainees are subject to censorship by the administration of the Centres for Detention on Remand.
Complaints, applications and letters addressed to the Ombudsman of Ukraine, to the European Court of Human Rights and to other relevant international organizations which Ukraine is a member or participant, and to representatives of such international organizations and to the prosecutor are not subject to censorship, and should be forwarded to the addressee within 24 hours from the moment of submission”.
Similar provisions are contained in Section 1.5. of the Instruction on Censorship of correspondence of detainees, introduced on 25 January 2006 (Інструкція з організації перегляду кореспонденції осіб, які тримаються в установах виконання покарань та слідчих ізоляторах, затверджена наказом Державного департаменту України з питань виконання покарань №13 від 25.01.2006).
The relevant extract from Article 3 of the European Agreement relating to Persons Participating in Proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights, ratified by Ukraine on 23 June 2004, provides as follows:
The Contracting Parties shall respect the right of the persons referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this Agreement to correspond freely with the Court.
As regards persons under detention, the exercise of this right shall in particular imply that:
their correspondence shall be dispatched and delivered without undue delay and without alteration...;
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to inhuman treatment and torture by the police officers during his detention on remand. He also complained about the detention conditions.
The applicant further complains that he was illegally detained in custody. He invokes Article 5 of the Convention.
The applicant also alleged that some of his letters to the Court and documents (at least 55 pages) had not been forwarded by the prison administration.
THE LAW
1. The Court considers that the applicant’s allegations concerning the control of his correspondence by the prison authorities and the supporting materials submitted by him constitute exceptional circumstances justifying restoration of his application to the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 43 § 5 of the Rules of Court.
2. The applicant complained of inhuman treatment, poor detention conditions and illegal detention He relied on Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, to request the respondent Government to submit copies of all documents concerning the applicant’s detention (reasons and length) and his treatment while in detention, in particular with regard to his allegation of ill-treatment and detention conditions.
3. The applicant complained that some of his letters to the Court and documents had not been forwarded by the prison administration. The Court is of opinion that this complaint should be examined under Articles 34 of the Convention, which provides so far as relevant as follows:
“The Court may receive applications from any person ... claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention... The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right”.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
4. As it appears that the applicant’s correspondence with the Court was subject to monitoring by the prison authorities, the Court finds that this falls within the ambit of Article 8 of the Convention, which provides so far as relevant as follows:
“.. Everyone has the right to respect for ... his correspondence...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to restore the applications to the list of pending cases;
Decides to adjourn the examination of the application.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
[1]. Words in italic show amendments of 1 December 2005.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy