FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37495/05
by Aleksandr Grigoryevich SOKOLOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 July 2010 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 10 August 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Sokolov, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in the village of Novokursk, in the Khakassia Republic. 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.
On 19 June 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having severely beaten up A. in concert with D., causing the victim's death.
On 22 June 2002 a prosecutor authorised the applicant's placement into custody with reference to the gravity of the charge against him and to the danger of his interfering with the ongoing investigation.
By a decision of 12 August 2002 the Beyskiy District Court of the Khakassia Republic (“the District Court”) extended the applicant's detention for three months with reference to the gravity of charges against him and the fact that the defence had not adduced any arguments in favour of varying the preventive measure.
Subsequently, the courts extended the applicant's detention on several occasions, mostly with reference to the gravity of charges against him.
On 10 September 2003 the District Court found the applicant guilty of concerted infliction of grievous bodily harm on the victim, causing his death, and sentenced the applicant to six years' imprisonment.
On 10 December 2003 the Supreme Court of the Khakassia Republic (“the Supreme Court”) quashed the applicant's conviction, remitted the case for a fresh examination to the District Court and ordered the applicant's detention to “be unchanged”.
Subsequently, the courts extended the applicant's detention on several occasions, referring to the gravity of charges against him.
By judgment of 27 December 2004 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment.
On 13 April 2005 the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of 27 December 2004, remitted the case at first instance and ordered the applicant's detention “to remain unchanged”.
In the ensuing proceedings the applicant's detention was extended on several occasions.
By a final judgment of 5 July 2006 the Supreme Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment.
On 21 September 2007 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk granted the applicant's request and ordered his release on parole.
It appears that the applicant was released shortly thereafter.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his continued detention had been unreasonably lengthy and had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons.
He further complained under Article 5 § 3 that his detention between 19 October 2002 and 10 September 2003 had been unlawful.
Lastly, he complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.
THE LAW
By letter dated 11 June 2009 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 13 August 2009.
By letter dated 1 December 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant's observations had expired on 13 August 2009 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 response to this letter has been received.
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