FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9799/03
by Vasiliy Aleksandrovich PIMANOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 July 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vasiliy Aleksandrovich Pimanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1986 and lives in the village of Bolshoye Selo of the Yaroslavl Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were 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 13 November 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a theft and placed in a detention facility of the Bolsheselskiy Department of the Ministry of Interior (ИВС Большесельского РОВД, “the detention facility”). It appears that some time later the applicant was transferred to SIZO No. 2 of the town of Yaroslavl, but was escorted to the detention facility for the period from one to three days repeatedly throughout the investigation and for a trial.
By decision of 16 November 2002 the Bolsheselskiy District Court of the Yaroslavl Region (“the District Court”) examined and granted an investigator’s request to detain the applicant.
On 21 November 2002 the investigator charged the applicant with theft.
In January 2003 the investigator applied to the District Court for an extension of the applicant’s detention until 28 February 2003.
On 11 January 2003 the District Court granted the investigator’s request and extended the detention until 28 February 2003. The court established that the applicant might flee from justice as he had previously ignored and evaded the summons by the police, that there was a justified fear of him committing further crimes, that the police also suspected him of a few other crimes and also referred to the gravity of his charges.
The decision of 11 January 2003 was upheld on appeal by the Yaroslavl Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) on 21 January 2003. The court noted that the lower courts correctly established the facts and took account of all relevant circumstances.
It appears that the applicant’s counsel was refused access to the prosecution case file to prepare for the hearing of 11 January 2003. By final decision of 4 March 2003 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s objections as groundless. The court noted that counsel had no right to access the prosecution case file until the investigation of the case was completed.
By decision of 25 February 2003 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 13 May 2003. The court referred to a justified fear that the applicant might flee, that the applicant’s parents had no effective control over the applicant’s behaviour, that the applicant had previously ignored the summons by the police and that he had failed to attend school.
It appears that the applicant remained in custody pending the investigation and the trial of his case at least until 30 March 2004.
By judgment of 30 March 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to four years and three months of imprisonment.
The sentence was reduced on appeal by the Regional Court on 25 June 2004 to three years and nine months of imprisonment.
On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant brought a complaint against various State authorities, claiming compensation for the bad conditions of his detention in the detention facility of the Bolsheselskiy Department of the Ministry of Interior (ИВС Большесельского РОВД) between 13 November 2002 and 30 March 2004. In particular, the applicant argued that his cell measuring two square metres and containing up to four people had a poor light, no toilet and proper sleeping facilities and was contaminated with lice. He also complained that the catering took place only once a day.
On 14 September 2005 the District Court granted the claim, mostly confirmed the applicant’s factual allegation in respect of the conditions of detention and, having regard to the relatively short duration of the detention between one and three days, ordered the authorities to pay the applicant RUR 1200 (approximately 40 euros) in damages.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 3 that the conditions of his detention in the detention facility of the Bolsheselskiy Department of the Ministry of Interior had been in breach of that Convention provision.
2. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention had been groundless and unlawful, that the defence had been deprived of the access to the prosecution case file in the proceedings concerning the extension of the applicant’s detention, that the detention had been too long and the authorities had failed to take account of his age.
3. Finally, under Article 6 of the Convention the applicant was dissatisfied with his conviction in that the courts had allegedly used inadmissible evidence and had made a wrong assessment of the circumstances of the case.
THE LAW
On 1 September 2006 the President of the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 8 November 2006.
By letter of 5 December 2006 the applicant was requested to submit, by 30 January 2007, his comments on the Government’s observations.
In view of the absence of the applicant’s reply, by letter of 23 April 2007, sent by registered mail, the applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provided that the Court could strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances led to the conclusion that an applicant did not intend to pursue the application.
The Court notes that, despite the Court’s letters of 5 December 2006 and 23 April 2007, 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 the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the application. The Court finds no reasons concerning the respect for Human Rights warranting the further examination of the case. With reference to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the application should be struck out of its list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy