FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11138/05
by Sergey Vyacheslavovich GRISHUNKIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 October 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Vyacheslavovich Grishunkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in the Moscow Region. He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in Lepley. The Russian Government (“the 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 23 December 2003 the applicant was taken into custody in connection with criminal proceedings against him. He was placed in cell no. 8 in a temporary detention facility (“IVS”) of the police department of Mytishchi, the Moscow Region. The cell measured 6 sq. m, had concrete walls and was dirty. There were no chairs. To wash himself, the applicant had to lean over a toilet pan. Five other persons were kept in the cell with him. Some of them smoked heavily. There was no space to walk in the cell. No exercise outside the cell was allowed.
From August to October 2004 the applicant was detained in cell no. 66 in detention facility IZ-50/2 in Volokolamsk. It measured about 10 sq. m and accommodated 9-10 persons. It was infested with bugs and lice. Two persons had to share one bed. There was no drinking water. The ventilation system was not working. The detainees received no toilet paper.
From 12 October until November 2004 the applicant was kept in cell no. 123 of IZ-50/2, which measured about 28 sq. m, accommodated 11‑13 persons and was infested with bugs and lice. Bars on the windows blocked access to natural light and fresh air. Artificial light was always switched on. Neither radio nor periodicals were available.
From November 2004 to May 2005 the applicant was kept in cell no. 506 of IZ-50/2, which measured about 28 sq. m, accommodated 18-20 persons and was similar to the previous cells.
Written statements by four of the applicant's cellmates confirmed that detainees had been severely bitten by bugs. Neither radio nor periodicals had been available. The cells had had concrete floor. Cold tap water had been only available for 30-40 minutes during the night.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the IVS of Mytishchi, Moscow Region and detention facility IZ-50/2 in Volokolamsk.
2. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been detained in a temporary detention facility for more than ten days per month, which had been the maximum duration permitted by the law for detention of accused persons in this type of detention facility. He also alleged that as a former police officer he should not have been detained together with dangerous criminals who had not belonged to the police.
3. The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had had no effective remedy to complain about the conditions of his detention.
THE LAW
By letter dated 11 September 2008 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 13 November 2008.
By letter dated 17 December 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. This letter reached the detention facility in which the applicant was being kept at that time on 11 January 2009, the advice of receipt having been signed to that effect by an official of that facility. No reply from the applicant followed.
In a letter of 4 June 2009 the Government were requested to answer to a number of factual questions concerning the applicant's correspondence with the Court and, in particular, to indicate whether the Court's letter of 17 December 2008 had been forwarded to the applicant. They were also requested to provide the applicant's written replies to each of those questions.
On 16 July 2009 the Government submitted the requested information. They stated, inter alia, that the detention facility in which the applicant had been being kept had received the Court's letter of 19 December 2008 on 11 January 2009 and transmitted it to the applicant on 14 January 2009. The Government also enclosed the applicant's written explanation confirming the Government's submissions.
By letter of 27 July 2009, sent by registered post, the Government's letter and accompanying documents were forwarded to the applicant, who was requested to submit his comments by 7 September 2009 and to clarify whether he intended to pursue his application. No response followed.
In a letter of 25 January 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was informed that the period allowed for submission of the information requested in the Court's letter of 27 July 2009 had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant was once more reminded that, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. No response has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously by a majority
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
André WampachChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy