FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 54260/00
by Andrey Aleksandrovich ZHUKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 21 March 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 September 1999 and registered on 24 January 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Andrey Aleksandrovich Zhukov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Palatka, Magadan Region, Russia.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 5 October 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud and placed in custody.
The applicant was officially charged two times: on 22 April 1997 and on 13 May 1997. On 16 June 1997 the bill of indictment was presented to the applicant. On 18 June 1997 the case was forwarded to the Magadan City Court (Магаданский городской суд) for examination.
On 21 October 1997 the applicant was informed by the president of the Magadan City Court that the court had accepted the applicant’s criminal case for examination and that it would be dealt with in the court’s chronological order of business.
The applicant’s further detention was authorised by the Prosecutor General for another 8 months and 25 days.
On 8 September 1997 the applicant received a letter from the Chairman of the Magadan Regional Judicial Qualification Board (Квалификационная коллегия судей Магаданской области) which said that the case was to be transferred to another judge. It was promised in the letter that the transfer would be completed upon return of the President of the court from holiday at the end of September 1997.
On 17 June 1998, and 10 August 1998 the chairman of the High Judicial Qualification Board (Высшая квалификационная коллегия судей Российской Федерации) requested that the President of the Magadan Regional Court (Магаданский Областной Суд) look into the problem of the lengthy non-examination of the applicant’s criminal case (the applicant had been detained on remand for 20 months by that time) and insisted on a prompt examination of the case.
On 27 May 1998, in reply to his complaint, the applicant received a letter from the Chairman of the Magadan Regional Judicial Qualification Board which informed him that no procrastination had been established, and that the case would be considered in the court’s chronological order of business.
On 13 August 1998 the President of the Magadan Regional Court informed the applicant that although the trial was initially fixed for 8 July 1997, it had not taken place as the judge concerned was on holiday at the time. The letter further provided information on two procedural decisions in a criminal case against two other persons, which were taken on 17 April and 10 June 1998. It further stated that it was open to the applicant to request the Magadan District Court to join his criminal case to that of the two other persons. The letter contained no details as to the case of those persons.
On 28 August 1998 the applicant was informed by a letter of the President of the Magadan Regional Court that his repeated complaints, which were forwarded by the High Judicial Qualification Board, had been examined and that the President of the Magadan City Court was invited to take measures to fix a hearing.
On 26 October 1999 the applicant received a letter from the Magadan Region Judicial Qualification Board that the hearing of his case was fixed for 21 November 1999.
In a letter of 30 October 1999 the acting President of the Magadan Regional Court informed the applicant that the case could not yet be considered since another suspect was still hiding from the investigation. It further stated that if the person were not found shortly, the applicant’s case would be considered separately.
On 5 November 1999 the acting President of the Magadan Regional Court forwarded another complaint about the procedural delays which it had received from the Supreme Court to the Magadan City Court.
On 22 February 2000 the acting President of the Magadan Regional Court addressed to the Magadan City Court an enquiry as to the state of proceedings in the case.
On 25 February 2000 the acting President of the Magadan City Court replied that the hearing of the case had started on 14 February 2000 and was suspended until 6 March 2000 for a forensic investigation.
The applicant submitted in a letter dated 15 March 2000 that no hearing had taken place.
On 17 March 2000 the applicant was convicted by the Magadan City Court and sentenced to six years and three months’ imprisonment. The appeal court reduced the sentence to four years and three months.
On 14 July 2000 the applicant was relieved from serving the sentence under an amnesty act and released from prison.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained that his being kept in detention on remand without a trial since 5 October 1996 violated his right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial pursuant to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
2. The applicant complained further, invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that no court examination of his case took place for a considerable period of time.
3. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention the applicant also complained that he was deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of his inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Court notes that on 3 November 2000 the Registry invited the applicant to submit by 15 December 2000 any written observations he might wish to make in reply to the observations submitted by the Government.
In the absence of a reply from the applicant in due time, on 8 March 2001 the Registry repeated its request. The applicant failed to reply.
On 29 May 2001 the Registry sent a registered letter to the applicant’s two known addresses warning him that, should he fail to reply before 25 June 2001 and to submit the requested information, the Court might consider that the he does not wish to pursue the application. The applicant received the letter on 13 June 2001 but no reply has been received.
In these circumstances the Court finds that, having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention the applicant has lost interest in his application and no longer intends to pursue it before the Court. 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 examination of the application to be continued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy