FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2546/06
by Mikhail REVIN
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 14 December 2005,
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 decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mikhail Vladimirovich Revin, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Yakutsk. 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 8 March 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking. He was searched and his passport, driving licence and 5,620 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately 160 euros) were seized. He was allegedly handcuffed and beaten up.
On 11 March 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic ordered his placement in custody.
The Yakutsk Town Court continuously extended the applicant’s detention, referring to the gravity of the charge and the risk of absconding, reoffending or hampering the proceedings.
It appears that the criminal proceedings are still pending and the applicant is still in custody.
2. Investigation into the ill-treatment of 8 March 2004
The applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office about his ill-treatment on 8 March 2004 and asked him to initiate criminal proceedings against the policemen.
On 9 March 2006 the prosecutor’s office refused to initiate criminal proceedings because there was no evidence of the applicant’s ill-treatment.
On 20 July 2006 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic confirmed the decision in the final instance.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about his ill-treatment.
2. The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 2, 3 and 4 that his arrest had not been based on a judicial order and that his detention had been too long.
3. Under Article 6 § 2 the applicant complained that the wording of the detention orders had violated his presumption of innocence.
4. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complained about the seizure of his money, his passport and driving licence.
THE LAW
On 14 June 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 30 August 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 7 November 2007.
On 12 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 19 December 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. To date the applicant 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