FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6103/04
by Anatoliy Germanovich KRUMIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 January 2004,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Germanovich Krumin, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Omsk. He was represented before the Court by Mr Y. Shadrin, head of the Omsk Regional Human Rights Centre. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former 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 July 2002 the applicant was charged with reckless driving. A legal aid counsel was appointed to represent the applicant.
Before the trial commenced the applicant asked to replace his legal aid counsel with a representative of his own choosing – Mr Sh. However, the trial court rejected the applicant’s request, because Mr Sh. did not have a law degree and, therefore, special legal knowledge to represent the applicant. Instead, the court appointed another legal aid counsel to represent the applicant during the trial.
On 14 February 2003 the Kalachinsk Town Court of the Omsk Region convicted the applicant for reckless driving and sentenced him to one year imprisonment with suspension of the applicant’s driving licence for a period of two years. The execution of the sentence was suspended on probation for a period of two years. The court also obliged the applicant to pay pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the victims of the accident. The court relied on testimonies by witnesses, victims’ statements and other materials in the case file. The victims did not attend the trial , so the court relied on their submissions received at the stage of the pre-trial investigation and on the statements made by their representative at the trial.
On 10 July 2003 the Omsk Regional Court examined the applicant’s case on appeal. The applicant requested to postpone the hearing and allow the person of his choosing – Mr Sh. – represent him on appeal. However, the applicant’s request was not granted and the applicant was left unrepresented. Following the examination of the case the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 14 February 2003 on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that the pre-trial detention order had been issued in his absence, and that the authorities failed to explain to him his right to appeal against the order.
2. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 that:
(a) the domestic court had been biased and that it had not allowed Mr Sh. to represent him during the trial and on appeal;
(b) he had not been allowed to tape-record the trial;
(c) the court had failed to obtain attendance of victims;
(d) the court had failed to inform the applicant of his procedural rights at each stage of the proceedings, including his right to participate in the pleadings and to reply;
(e) the court had failed to examine the case within the reasonable time.
3. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 13 about the absence of an effective domestic remedy against the length of the proceedings in his case.
THE LAW
On 28 September 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 21 January 2008 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 25 January 2008 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 21 March 2008.
On 26 February 2008 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 March 2008, on 11 June 2008 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. To date the applicant has not replied.
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 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 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