FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5443/06
by Aleksandr Gennadyevich KLEPIKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 October 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 December 2005,
Having regard to the Court's decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 1 of the Convention),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Gennadyevich Klepikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and lived until his arrest in the town of Yakutsk, Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic. He is now serving his sentence in correctional colony no. 6 in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic. The respondent Government were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, 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 27 March 2004 police officers arrested the applicant and brought him to a police station. The officers suspected that the applicant had participated in a string of burglaries in Yakutsk. According to the applicant, in the station the officers subjected him to severe ill-treatment.
The applicant lodged a complaint with prosecution authorities seeking institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers.
On 31 December 2005 the investigation was closed with a finding that there was no criminal conduct in the police officers' actions and that the applicant had sustained injuries during his attempted escape from the police officers. The investigator's decision was upheld, in the final instance, by the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic on 7 March 2006.
In the meantime, on 29 December 2005 the Yakutsk Town found the applicant guilty of fifteen counts of burglary charges, possession and theft of weapons and sentenced him to eleven years' imprisonment. In response to the applicant's arguments that the police officers had tortured him in March 2004, the Town Court noted that the allegations were manifestly ill-founded because the investigators and attesting witnesses, who had seen the applicant during the investigating actions after his arrest, had not supported the ill-treatment complaints. That judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic on 27 April 2006.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13 and 14 of the Convention about the ill-treatment at the hands of the police, ineffective investigation into his ill-treatment complaints and about various procedural violations during criminal proceedings against him.
THE LAW
On 15 April 2009 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 14 September 2009 the Government's observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 24 September 2009 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 26 November 2009.
On 13 October 2009 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 26 November 2009, on 8 February 2010 the Court sent a letter by registered mail to the applicant, advising him that the failure to submit the observations might result in the strike-out of the application.
The acknowledgement-of-receipt card returned to the Court on 12 April 2010. It bore two signatures, one belonging to Ms Ya., a prison inspector, and the second one belonging to a censor whose last name was unreadable.
In view of the fact that it was impossible to verify that the applicant had, in fact, received the Court's letter of 8 February 2010, on 4 May 2010 the Court asked the Government to submit the factual information under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court. In particular, they were asked to confirm that the Court's letters of 15 April, 24 September and 14 October 2009 and 8 February 2010 had been delivered to the applicant. The Government were also requested to produce copies of the applicant's signatures for these letters from the facility's correspondence log.
By a letter of 16 June 2010 the Government informed the Court that its letters of 15 April, 24 September and 14 October 2009 and 8 February 2010 had been served on the applicant on 8 May, 22 October and 9 November 2009 and 1 March 2010, respectively. The Government supported their assertion with copies of the applicant's handwritten notes showing the date and registration number of each letter and the date when it had been delivered to him.
On 21 June 2010 the Court asked the applicant to comment on the Government's submissions by 9 August 2010. No response followed.
In this respect, 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 and a strike-out warning. The Court is satisfied that the applicant was properly informed about a consequence of the failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom 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 these circumstances it considers that Article 29 § 1 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 1 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy