FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33755/04
by Vladimir Petrovich NOSOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 September 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Petrovich Nosov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Sevastopol, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
On 5 May 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. Between 5 and 8 May 2002 he was detained in a cell in the Balaklava District Police Department.
On 7 May 2002 the applicant was examined by a forensic expert who found various injuries including bruises on the left eye, on the forehead and on both shoulders and an abrasion on the left cheekbone.
On 8 May 2002 the applicant was placed in the Sevastopol Preliminary Detention Centre (ІТС УМВД України в м. Севастополі).
In December 2002 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Balaklava District Prosecutor's Office against the officers of the Police Department. He alleged ill-treatment and submitted that his three-day custody in the police cell had been inhuman and unlawful.
On 19 December 2002 investigator P. of the Balaklava District Prosecutor's Office decided not to bring any charges, finding no wrongdoing on the part of the officers.
On 8 April 2003 the Balaklava District Court of Sevastopol found that the investigation had been insufficient. The investigator's decision of 19 December 2002 was quashed and further inquiries into the applicant's allegations were ordered.
On 22 July 2003 investigator P., following an additional inquiry, found no reason to bring criminal charges against the police officers concerned, as there was nothing illegal in their actions. The applicant's repeated appeal and the further complaints with the public prosecutor were to no avail.
On 8 September 2003 the applicant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that during his detention in the police cell he had been subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. In this respect he alleged that the police officers had beaten him up and that the conditions of his detention in the cell had been grossly inadequate. He also alleged that the State provided no effective safeguards against this ill-treatment. He also referred to Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, stating that his detention in the police cell had been unlawful.
THE LAW
By a letter dated 16 November 2006 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 29 December 2006.
By a letter dated 30 March 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 29 December 2006 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. The applicant received this letter on 10 April 2007.
No correspondence has been received from the applicant since 6 November 2006.
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.
Claudia WesterdiekRait Maruste
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy