FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 44435/06
by Vitaliy Yuryevich KHOLODILIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 September 2006,
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, Mr Vitaliy Yuryevich Kholodilin, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and currently serves a sentence of imprisonment in prison YaV 48/15 in Potatino, the Chelyabinsk Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by
Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 5 March 1999 the applicant was arrested. He alleged that no record of his arrest had been drawn up and that no lawyer had been provided for the purposes of his representation.
On 12 April 1999 the charges were brought against the applicant and he was detained pending trial.
On 14 June 2000 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of complicity in an aggravated murder and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.
On 9 June 2001 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment on appeal.
On 15 December 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia following the applicant’s requests quashed the conviction by way of supervisory review because the court which convicted the applicant failed to meet an “established by law” requirement and remitted the case for a retrial. The court ordered to keep the restraint chosen in respect of the applicant unchanged.
On 24 June 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court again convicted the applicant of complicity in an aggravated murder and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.
On 10 March 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he had not been given an opportunity to participate in the hearing of 15 December 2004 which would have enabled him to present his position as regards the necessity of his further detention and to provide for the required evidence.
2. He complained under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention that in its decision of 15 December 2004 to keep the restraint chosen in respect of the applicant unchanged the court had not indicated any reasons justifying the applicant’s further detention.
3. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 that the criminal proceedings against him lasted unreasonably long.
THE LAW
On 23 January 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 20 April 2007 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. The Court asked the applicant to submit his written observations by 21 June 2007.
On 30 May 2007 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. 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 by 21 June 2007, on 1 October 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application. The applicant did not reply.
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 Court notes that the applicant was requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefore that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court 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 view of the above-mentioned, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case 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.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy