THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14847/03
by Yelena Olegovna GORFINA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrB.M. Zupančič, President,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrsI. Ziemele,
MrsI. Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Mr S. Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 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, Ms Yelena Olegovna Gorfina, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lived until her arrest in Tver. She was serving her prison sentence in a correctional colony in Ivanovo. The respondent Government were 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 8 March 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. Her placement in custody was authorised three days later. She was charged with aggravated fraud, participation in a criminal enterprise, money laundering and forgery of documents.
The Omsk Regional Court a number of times extended the applicant’s detention, having regard to the gravity of the charges against her. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the detention orders without summonsing the applicant to the appeal hearings.
On 17 April 2003 the Supreme Court ordered the applicant’s release on a written undertaking not to leave the town. She was released five days later.
On 21 April 2004 the Omsk Regional Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated fraud and sentenced her to eight years’ imprisonment. The period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was included in the term of her sentence. On 25 November 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction.
According to the applicant, during her detention on remand she was kept in very poor conditions in remand centre no. 1 in Omsk.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention that she had stayed in appalling conditions in the remand centre, that her detention on remand had been unlawful and extremely long, that the domestic courts had not pronounced speedily on the lawfulness of her detention, that she had not been called to the appeal hearings, and that she had been convicted by a court which had not been “a tribunal established by law”.
THE LAW
On 7 April 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government.
On 20 July 2006 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 24 July 2006 the Court invited the applicant to submit her written observations in reply by 25 September 2006. The letter was sent to the address of the colony where the applicant was detained. She indicated that address in her letter as the place of her current residence.
On 19 September 2006 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The letter was sent to the colony. 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 within the indicated time-limit, on 8 December 2006 the Court, assuming that the applicant could have been released in the meantime, sent copies of its letters of 7 April, 24 July and 19 September 2006 to the address which the applicant had indicated in her application form as the address of her permanent residence. The letter of 8 December 2006 with the enclosures was sent by registered mail.
On 9 February 2007 the Court received the acknowledgment of receipt card on which a postman had noted that the letter of 8 December 2006 had not been delivered because the applicant had moved out and her current place of residence was unknown.
On 8 March 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit her observations might result in her application being struck out of the list of cases. The letter of 8 March 2007 was sent to every address which the applicant had indicated in her application form and letters, including the one which she had noted as the address of her possible residence.
As it follows from the acknowledgment of receipt card which returned to the Court, the letter of 8 March 2007 had not been delivered to the address of the applicant’s possible residence because she had moved out and her new address was unknown.
No response has been received from the applicant to date.
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 applicant was advised that she was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. She was subsequently reminded thereof. The applicant has not replied to date.
The Court recalls that, pursuant to Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court, “applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the applicant”. Under that Rule, it is incumbent on the applicant to provide at least a minimum of information, namely her postal address, enabling the Court to conduct correspondence with her and to proceed with her petition. The Court observes that it has unsuccessfully tried to communicate with the applicant at her place of detention. Assuming that the applicant could have been released while the proceedings before the Court were pending, it subsequently sent correspondence to the applicant’s home address and the address of her possible residence. However those attempts also proved to be futile.
In the present case, it appears that the applicant had served her sentence and that she failed to inform the Court of the change of her postal address, when she was released. Nor did she indicate any provisional address at which communication with her could be effected. Thus, the applicant made it impossible for the Court to continue the examination of his case (cf. Krutov v. Russia (dec.), no. 25260/02, 5 January 2007, Babichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 21777/03, 18 May 2006 and Gurin v. Russia (dec.), no. 4844/03, 9 March 2007).
The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application. Furthermore, it 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 strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stanley NaismithBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy