FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 57531/00
by Leonid PEREVOSHCHIKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 September 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrG. Bonello,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 May 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Leonid Fedorovich Perevoshchikov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Izhevsk. He is represented before the Court by Ms K. Kostromina, a lawyer with the International Protection Centre in Moscow. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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 30 July 1997 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment in a colony based on a general regime and confiscation of property.
On 17 March 1998 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic upheld the conviction.
In 1999 the administration of the colony where the applicant served his sentence applied to a court to have him released on licence.
On 20 April 1999 the Zavyalovskiy District Court of the Udmurt Republic (Завьяловский районный суд Республики Удмуртия) refused the application for the applicant’s release on licence. The District Court found that the applicant had shown disrespect for lower officers in the colony administration and had not shown any remorse.
On an unspecified date the colony administration filed a second application for the applicant’s release on licence.
On 30 July 1999 the Zavyalovskiy District Court of the Udmurt Republic, sitting in a differently composed bench, granted the application for the applicant’s release. The court took statements from a representative of the colony administration and the applicant and, having found no breaches of the regime on the part of the applicant, ordered his release. The ruling of the District Court was subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic for a period of seven days. No such appeal was lodged.
On 12 November 1999 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic, composed of the presiding judge K. and judges R., U., T. and Z., examined the application of the President of the Supreme Court for supervisory review of the ruling of 30 July 1999. The Supreme Court reviewed the case file, considered the merits of the President’s application and heard a report by the acting prosecutor of the Udmurt Republic who argued in support of the application.
The Supreme Court found that the ruling of 30 July 1999 contained two significant procedural defects. First, the District Court had failed to respect a requirement of the domestic law that a second application for release on licence may only be examined six months after the first application was refused. Second, there was no transcript of the hearing in the District Court, as required by law.
The Supreme Court quashed the ruling of 30 July 1999 and ordered the applicant to be taken into custody and sent to a correctional colony based on a strict regime for the remaining time of his sentence.
On 5 December 1999 the applicant complained about the Supreme Court’s decision to the prosecutor of the Udmurt Region. The applicant indicated that he had not been advised of the hearing before the Supreme Court and could not attend it, that he was sent to a colony based on a strict regime whereas he had been originally sentenced to a colony based on a general regime, and, finally, that the domestic courts under “far-fetched pretexts” refused to provide him with copies of the decisions of 30 July 1999 and 12 November 1999.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he had been re-detained in a strict regime colony after his release pursuant to the court decision of 30 July 1999.
2. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the decision on his release had been quashed on the application of the President of the Supreme Court. Under the same provision he complained that the Presidium of the Supreme Court had not been impartial because the bench had included judge T., whose brother had been defrauded by the applicant and who had been a victim in the original criminal proceedings against the applicant.
3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (a, b, c) that he had not been advised of the hearing before the Presidium of the Supreme Court.
THE LAW
On 25 September 2003 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 15 January 2004 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 18 March 2004.
On 20 February 2004 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.
On 23 April 2004 the Court received a letter from the applicant’s representative of 16 March 2004 that read as follows:
“When we had received your first letter (dated 29 September 2003) with information that this application had been communicated to the Government, we sent the letter to the applicant. The applicant did not answer.
Only in late February [2004] we managed to find his relatives’ address and [we] sent him a telegramme, but his relatives refused to receive the telegramme. We sent them a telegramme and a letter once again, in which we asked them to [make contact] with our Centre, but until now we have not received any response.”
The representative requested an extension until 16 April 2004. As that date had already passed by that time, the President of the Chamber granted an extension until 14 May 2004.
No reply from the applicant or his representative has been received.
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 advised that he was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. It appears that his representatives were unable to contact him. No observations have been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, it 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 the case 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 strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy