FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13433/04
by Marat Samatovich KHUZEYEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on
14 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 February 2004,
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 Marat Samatovich Khuzeyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1977. He is serving a prison sentence. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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 5 November 1998 the applicant was arrested and placed in the remand centre in Krasnoufimsk. Subsequently he was transferred to the remand centre SIZO 1 in Yekaterinburg.
From 18 November 1998 to 9 September 1999 the applicant was held in a cell designed for thirty inmates. Allegedly, the actual occupancy rate was much higher, and the cell was damp and cold.
In June 2002 the applicant brought civil proceedings claiming compensation against SIZO 1. He asserted that due to the appalling conditions of his detention he had contracted tuberculosis.
On 18 November 2002 the Verkh-Isetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg rejected the applicant’s claims. It appears that the court relied on a medical certificate submitted by the remand centre. According to the certificate, the applicant already suffered from tuberculosis when he was transferred to SIZO 1 in November 1998.
On 24 February 2004 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant was not present at the hearing.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in SIZO 1. In particular, he alleged that his health had deteriorated and that he had contracted tuberculosis.
He complained that the examination of the appeal without giving him an adequate opportunity to attend the appeal hearing had violated his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 1 March 2006 the Court communicated the case to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court.
On 27 March 2006 the applicant submitted a request for legal aid. By letter of 18 May 2006 the Court requested the applicant to designate, by
6 July 2006, a representative in accordance with paragraph 4 (a) of Rule 36 of the Rules of Court. The applicant did not comply with this request.
The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 21 June 2006. By letter of 4 July 2006, the Court requested the applicant to submit, by 3 September 2006, his comments on the Government’s observations.
In view of the absence of the applicant’s reply, by letter of 31 October 2006, sent by registered mail, the Court drew the applicant’s attention to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provides that the Court can strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that an applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
The applicant did not reply to the letter of 31 October 2006.
The Court notes that on 2 March 2006 the applicant was informed that notice of the application had been given to the respondent Government. The Court also notes that despite its letter of 31 October 2006, the applicant has not submitted his comments on the Government’s observations, nor has he made any other submissions to the Court after 27 March 2006.
With reference to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application and that the case should be struck out of its list. The Court finds no particular reasons concerning respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, which would require further examination of the present application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy