FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8426/03
by Vladimir PLESHAKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 February 2003,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Vissarionovich Pleshakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Rostov-on-Don. The respondent Government are represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, 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.
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 22 November 2001 the applicant was charged with fraud and remanded in custody.
On 16 May 2002 the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment.
On 17 September 2002 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant participated at the appeal hearing by way of videoconference.
2. Conditions of the applicant’s detention
From 22 November 2001 to 22 January 2003 the applicant was held in detention facility no. IZ-61/1 in Rostov-on-Don. According to the applicant, the cells were overcrowded and the hygienic conditions were unsatisfactory.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of his detention had been degrading and inhuman.
2. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention about the allegedly unlawful detention pending trial.
3. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. In particular, he alleged that he had been entrapped to commit fraud, that he had been forced to incriminate himself, that the conviction and the sentence had been unjust, and that he had been absent from the appeal hearing
THE LAW
On 28 June 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 25 September 2007 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 17 December 2007.
On 25 October 2007 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 the indicated time-limit, on 22 January 2008 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. The applicant received the letter on 28 January 2008. To date he 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 applicant was advised that he was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He was subsequently reminded thereof. He was also informed about the consequence of his failure to submit the observations. The applicant has not replied 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 the Court considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it 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