FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2989/05
by Valeriy Vladimirovich POTSEPA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 January 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 December 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Valeriy Vladimirovich Potsepa, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Novosibirsk. He is represented before the Court by Mr V.M. Mitin, a lawyer practising in Novosibirsk. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the 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.
Prosecution authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant suspecting him of having committed large-scale fraud. On 9 December 2004 the applicant was admitted to hospital with acute diabetes and was prescribed in-patient treatment. On the following day, the police escorted him from the hospital to the Kirovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk. The court authorised his detention pending investigation. The applicant appealed against the detention order but to no avail.
Subsequently, his detention was twice extended. On 2 March 2005 officials of a special medical unit of the detention centre informed the applicant’s lawyer that the applicant was in a poor condition. On 5 March 2005 the applicant was released from custody and one day later he was admitted to the emergency unit of a state civilian hospital with diabetic ketoacidosis, a life-threatening complication.
The outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant is unknown.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 2 § 1 that he had been taken into custody in poor health and that there had been an imminent risk to his life.
He further complained under Article 3 that, in the light of his disease, his detention pending trial had amounted to inhuman treatment.
He also complained that the detention order of 10 December 2004 had been made in breach of Article 5 § 1.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 13, the applicant alleged that his appeal against the detention order had not been decided speedily.
Finally, referring to Article 7, he complained that he had been charged with an offence which had not constituted a criminal offence under the relevant national law at the time the acts concerned had been committed.
THE LAW
The Court reiterates 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;
...
(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the 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 application was communicated under Articles 2, 3 and 5 § 4 of the Convention to the Government who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits on 8 and 17 July 2009. By letter of 20 July 2009 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative. The latter was invited to submit his observations, together with any claims for just satisfaction, by 21 September 2009. On the applicant’s requests, the time-limit was extended to 2 April 2010 and then to 23 June 2010.
By letter dated 14 September 2010 sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 23 June 2010. His 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 an applicant does not intend to pursue the application. It follows from the acknowledgement-of-receipt card that the applicant received this letter on 11 October 2010. Nevertheless, he did not reply to the Court’s reminder.
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.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy