SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 69364/01
by Vitaliy Anatolyevich GRIMAYLO
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 February 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 October 2000,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Anatolyevich Grimaylo, is a Ukrainian national, who was born on 6 July 1965. He is currently detained in the Investigative Detention Centre of the Crimean Police Department. He is a former commercial director of the Security Company “Bezopasnost-Krym”.
In 1999 the investigation department of the State Security Service (the “SBU”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of involvement in smuggling, drug-trafficking and the illegal storage of ammunition, explosives and firearms, to which were later added possible offences of extortion, grievous bodily harm and the illegal crossing of the State border.
In the course of the investigations the applicant’s residence was searched and the applicant was detained on remand as of 25 January 1999. His requests for release on bail were refused.
On 6 June 2000 the applicant was indicted with the unlawful crossing of the State border, smuggling of drugs, extortion, the illegal storage of weapons and drug trafficking.
On 24 June 2000 the Sevastopol City Court remitted the case to the SBU Crimean Department for additional investigations (додаткове розслідування) in accordance with Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also joined all the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
On 18 August 2000 the indictment was amended on the basis of newly disclosed facts.
Between June and November 2000 the case was transferred back and forth from the SBU investigator to the Sevastopol City Court on five occasions. Then the case was transferred to the Gagarinsky District Court for further consideration.
In November 2000 the Gagarinsky District Court of Sevastopol decided to consider the case on the merits and committed the applicant to trial.
On 6 March 2001 the Gagarinsky District Court of Sevastopol rejected the applicant’s requests for release from custody. It also refused to apply a more lenient preventive measure to the applicant.
In May 2002 the Gagarinsky District Court of Sevastopol rejected the applicant’s petition for release and in-hospital medical treatment as being unsubstantiated.
On 13 June, 21 October and 27 December 2002 the Gagarinsky District Court of Sevastopol rejected the applicant’s further motions for release.
In February 2003 the Gagarinsky District Court of Sevastopol rejected the applicant’s complaints about the unreasonable length of his detention as unsubstantiated, a decision not subject to appeal.
In October 2003 the Gagarinsky District Court of Sevastopol rejected the applicant’s complaints concerning the unreasonable length of his detention as unsubstantiated. It also held that the length of his detention was in compliance with the law.
According to the last information from the parties, the trial is still pending before the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 1 of the Convention that his rights as a Ukrainian citizen are not being respected by the State authorities and in particular by the Prosecution Service and the State Security Service.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about ill-treatment during his arrest and detention by the Security Service officers and the prosecution, and whilst detained at the initial stages in the guardhouse of the Chornomorsky Fleet. He also complained about the conditions of his detention.
The applicant alleged that his detention was unlawful from the very beginning and that the decision to detain him was groundless. He further maintained that he was not brought before the judge promptly to review his arrest; nor was he brought before the competent prosecutor. In this connection he invoked Article 5 §§ 1 b) and c) and 3 of the Convention.
The applicant also complained about the unreasonable length of the proceedings in his case. He further alleged that the courts failed to defend his rights. He maintained that Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention were infringed.
The applicant alleged that Article 8 of the Convention had been infringed as the SBU investigators had no court warrant to tap his telephone conversations.
The applicant alleged that he had suffered from discrimination on the grounds of language, his financial status and his political and personal views. He referred to Article 14 of the Convention.
Finally, the applicant alleged that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention had been infringed as all his property and documents were seized by the investigators.
THE LAW
Notice of the application was given to the Government on 6 February 2004. The applicant was required to provide a letter of authority to the Court for his representation and papers for a possible grant of legal aid were processed.
On 27 April 2005 the President of the Second Section, in the light of the applicant’s own written observations in the case and his request to represent himself or be represented by his wife, decided that a lawyer’s participation in the instant case was essential, as the case was complex from a legal and factual point of view, and a lawyer’s participation was necessary to facilitate its examination. The applicant was therefore invited to appoint a lawyer and submit a letter of authority for his representation before the Court by 30 May 2005, as required by Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4(a) of the Rules of the Court, which provides in so far as relevant:
“... Following notification of the application to the respondent Contracting Party under Rule 54 § 2 (b), the applicant should be represented in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Rule, unless the President of the Chamber decides otherwise.
... 4. (a) The representative acting on behalf of the applicant pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Rule shall 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 applicant failed to appoint a representative or submit such a letter of authority. On 9 September 2005, the Registry sent the applicant a reminder by registered post, warning him of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list of case if he failed to comply with the President’s decision. The applicant received this letter on 20 September 2005. On 22 September and 14 October 2005 he replied that he still wanted to represent himself in the course of the proceedings or alternatively that his wife would be his representative before the Court.
On 18 November 2005 the Registry reminded the applicant of his failure to provide the name of a legal representative, as required by Rule 36 § 4(a) of the Rules of Court and the decision of the Chamber President on 27 April 2005, as requested from him on three occasions (10 November 2004, 7 April and 30 May 2005). It also informed the applicant that “the Court might decide that [he] is no longer interested in pursuing his application and that the case should be struck out from the list of cases pending before it under Rule 43 of the Rules [of Court]”.
On 14 December 2005 the applicant responded that he wished his wife to represent him.
However, the Court finds that it cannot continue the examination of the present application without the appropriate legal representation of the applicant. It recalls that the applicant received reminders on the subject but failed to comply, despite the possibility of a grant of legal aid and a warning that his application might be struck out of the list. In these circumstances and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the further examination of this case. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy