FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31730/03
by Yuriy Anatolyevich YEVGRAFOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 April 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Anatoly Kovler,
Renate Jaeger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 September 2003,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Yuriy Anatolyevich Yevgrafov, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and who lived until his conviction in the town of Vuktyl, the Republic of Komi. He is represented before the Court by Mr O. Yevgrafov, a lawyer practising in Vuktyl. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mr G. Matyushkin.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that he had not been presumed innocent until proved guilty. The Government contested the applicant’s assertions.
On 20 September 2007 the Court gave notice to the parties of the above complaints.
On 20 December 2007 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and on 10 January 2008 the applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 21 February 2008.
In June 2008 it has been noticed that due to technical reasons the Court’s letters of 20 September 2007 and 10 January 2008 had been sent to a wrong address. In this connection, on 16 June 2008 copies of the above correspondence were sent to the correct address, and the time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the above case was extended until 17 August 2008.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by the indicated time-limit, on 23 September 2008 the applicant was informed by registered mail 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 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 WesterdiekRait Maruste
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy