FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18813/03
by Mikhail Matveyevich RAPOPORT
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8 December 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Rait Maruste,
Anatoly Kovler,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 May 2003,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
On 26 May 2008 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 concerning the allegedly unfair hearing in the determination of criminal charges against him and concerning the alleged lack of impartiality of the tribunal.
In their observations of 22 August 2008 the Government informed the Court that by a decision of 23 July 2008 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court, in supervisory review proceedings, had quashed the first-instance judgment of 10 December 2002 and the appeal decision of 6 April 2005, had discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant referring to the absence of corpus delicti in his actions and acknowledged his right for rehabilitation and compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Government enclosed a copy of the decision of 23 July 2008 and a copy of the applicant’s letter in which he expressed his wish to withdraw his application with reference to that decision.
By a letter dated 3 September 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations in reply by 4 November 2008.
In the absence of any reply from the applicant, by a registered letter dated 17 December 2008 the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired 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. No reply followed.
THE LAW
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 WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy