FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14917/04
by Aleksey Mikhaylovich KOROBKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 April 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksey Mikhaylovich Korobkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in the town of Nesterovo, in the Moscow 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 22 June 2001 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of fraud and abuse of position and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. The conviction was upheld on appeal but the sentence was reduced by six months.
On 20 August 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, by way of a supervisory review, quashed the applicant’s conviction, ordered re-examination of the case and held that the applicant should remain in custody.
On 25 September 2002 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court fixed the first trial hearing and, without providing any reasoning, extended the applicant’s detention. Subsequently, on a number of occasions the District Court further extended his detention on remand, having regard to the gravity of charges against him.
On 2 December 2003 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of fraud and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.
On 25 June 2004 the applicant was informed that on 25 May 2004 the Skopin Town Court had re-examined his conviction applying the amendments to the Russian Criminal Code and had reduced his sentence to two years. On the same day the applicant was released.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Convention that his detention had been unlawful and extremely long, that the domestic courts had not provided him with a speedy review of the grounds of his detention, that the criminal proceedings had been excessively long, and that the trial court had committed several violations of the procedural law.
THE LAW
On 14 November 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 7 February 2007 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 21 February 2007 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 25 April 2007.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 25 April 2007, on 28 June 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application.
On 30 July 2007 the applicant notified the Court that he had not received the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application and, thus, he was unable to prepare his written observations in reply.
On 9 August 2007 the Court sent a letter to the applicant, enclosing the Government’s observations. The applicant was invited to submit his written observations by 11 October 2007.
As the applicant failed to submit his observations on the admissibility and merits within the new time-limit, on 22 January 2008 the Court once again reminded the applicant by registered mail about a consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response followed.
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 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 § 3 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 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
André WampachChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy