FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 509/06
by Roman YARMOSHIK
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 December 2009 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 16 November 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Roman Petrovich Yarmoshik, is a Russian national who was born in 1986 and lives in Kaliningrad. The respondent Government were initially represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, 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 28 February 2004 the applicant, a minor at the time, was arrested on suspicion of theft and detained pending investigation and trial.
On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the prosecutor that policemen had beaten him up to make him confess to the theft. On 31 March 2004 the prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The applicant did not appeal.
From 31 March to 6 April 2005 the applicant was detained in the absence of any court order.
On 7 June 2005 the Kaliningrad Regional Court dismissed in the final instance the applicant’s complaint about unlawfulness of his detention during the period in question.
On 13 September 2005 the applicant was released from custody.
It appears that the criminal proceedings against him are still pending.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been beaten up by the police on 28 February 2004 and under Articles 5 §§ 1 (c) and (3) and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been detained from 31 March to 6 April 2005 in the absence of a court order.
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
(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 Court observes that, by letter of 29 May 2008 the Government acknowledged the violation of the applicant’s rights set forth in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention and proposed that the case be settled.
On 3 July and 25 August 2008 the Registry forwarded the Government’s observations, including the proposal to settle the case, to the applicant who was requested to submit his observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 15 September 2008. The applicant did not respond to neither of the above letters.
By letter of 17 March 2009 sent by registered mail, the applicant was advised that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provided that the Court would strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances led to the conclusion that the applicant did not intend to pursue the application.
The Court’s letter was delivered to the applicant on 31 March 2009 against a signed receipt. No response followed from the applicant.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be considered as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court further considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of his complaints (Article 37 § 1 in fine). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list of cases.
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