FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26506/07
Vitaliy Anatolyevich MASHIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 May 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Anatolyevich Mashin, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in the town of Samara. He is currently detained pending criminal proceedings against him in remand prison IZ‑63/1 of the Samara Region.
The respondent Government were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 30 January 2006 the applicant, a policeman, was detained on suspicion of abuse of power and corruption.
On the next day, his detention on remand was authorised by a judge of the Samarskiy District Court of the town of Samara. The court referred to a suspicion of the applicant’s involvement in a serious crime and argued that the applicant, as an acting policeman, could flee, put pressure on victims and witnesses, destroy the evidence or otherwise impede the investigation.
On the applicant’s appeal, on 10 February 2006 the Samara Regional Court upheld the detention order of 30 January 2006. The court failed to inform the applicant or his counsel about this hearing.
On 28 March 2006 a judge of the Samarskiy District Court further extended the applicant’s detention with reference to the same reasons as previously.
On 26 June 2006 a judge of the Samarskiy District Court again extended the applicant’s detention on remand with reference to the same reasons.
On 24 August 2006 a judge of the Samarskiy District Court further extended the detention with similar reasoning. This time the court failed to inform the applicant or his counsel about the hearing, so that the defence was unable to attend.
By order of 30 January 2007 a judge of the Samarskiy District Court yet again extended the applicant’s detention with reference to the same reasons as previously.
The applicant’s appeal against the detention order was examined and rejected by the Samara Regional Court on 16 March 2007. The court failed to inform the defence about the hearing and, as a result, the applicant was unable to make submissions or to attend it.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention pending criminal proceedings had been generally unjustified, too long and unlawful. He was also dissatisfied with the courts’ failure to inform him about court hearings concerning the lawfulness of his detention and his resulting inability to attend them.
THE LAW
On 18 March 2011 the President of the Court gave notice of the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 21 July 2011.
By letter of 25 July 2011 the applicant was requested to submit, by 26 September 2011, his comments on the Government’s observations.
As the applicant had not replied, by letter of 8 December 2011, sent by registered mail, his attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court can strike a case out of its list where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that an applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
The Court notes that, despite the Court’s letters of 25 July 2011 and 8 December 2011, the applicant has not submitted his observations in reply to those of the Government. Nor has he made any other submissions to the Court.
Against this background, 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.
André WampachLinos-Alexandre Sicilianos
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy