FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39678/07
by Yevgeniy SHCHERBININ
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 August 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Shcherbinin, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lived, until his conviction, in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Ms T. Bochkareva and Mr A. Artamoshkin, lawyers practising in Moscow.
A. The applicant's arrest, detention, and conviction
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 7 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. By Chertanovskiy District Court's judgment of 28 April 2003, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 25 September 2003, the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to twelve and a half years' imprisonment.
At the applicant's request, on 28 July 2005 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the conviction and ordered a re-trial.
On 25 September 2005 the applicant was brought to remand centre no. IZ-77/1 of Moscow where he stayed until 7 March 2007 in allegedly overcrowded cells.
On 23 November 2006 the Chertanovskiy District Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. On 21 February 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal.
B. Correspondence with the Court
On 8 April 2009 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 2 September 2009 the Government's observations were forwarded to the applicant's counsel who were requested to submit observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 4 November 2009.
By letter of 19 January 2010 sent by registered mail, counsel for the applicant were advised that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. Their attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court would 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.
On 11 February 2010 the Court received a letter from Ms Bochkareva who stated that the reason for her silence had been a sharp deterioration of her health which had restricted her ability to work on the case.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention in IZ-77/1 of Moscow.
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had not been based on relevant and sufficient grounds.
The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about various procedural defects of the judicial proceedings.
THE LAW
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
...
(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 Court observes that the applicant did not submit any observations within the time-limit established for their submission. He was represented by two professional advocates from the same legal office in Moscow. Even if one counsel Ms Bochkareva was prevented from working on the case by reason of her health problems, no explanation for Mr Artamoshkin's failure to submit observations on the applicant's behalf has been put forward. Notwithstanding the Court's reminder about the possibility of striking the case out of the list of cases, the most recent letter from Ms Bochkareva did not enclose any observations.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) 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