FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33237/04
by Samed Guseyn-Ogly MAMEDOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 August 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Samed Guseyn-Ogly Mamedov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1974 and is serving a prison sentence in facility IR-99/17 in Surgut. The Russian Government (“the 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 5 April 2003 police officers of the Pyt-Yakhskiy town police station arrested the applicant on suspicion of drug trafficking and allegedly
ill-treated him during the arrest. Subsequently, the applicant was allegedly also beaten up at the police station.
By a final judgment of 9 December 2003 the Court of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Region (“the Regional Court”) convicted the applicant of drug trafficking on a particularly large scale and sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment.
On 18 December 2003 the Pyt-Yakhskiy Town prosecutor's office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers on account of the applicant's alleged ill-treatment.
By a final decision of 6 April 2004 the Regional Court discontinued the court proceedings on the applicant's complaint against the decision of 18 December 2003, finding that he had failed to comply with procedural requirements for appealing against the above decision.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated during arrest and that he had not had effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 3.
THE LAW
By letter dated 15 April 2009 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 27 June 2009.
By letter dated 1 December 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant's observations had expired on 27 June 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. No response to this letter has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
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