FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3185/08
by Vadim ZINOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 August 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 December 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Vadim Vyacheslavovich Zinov, a Russian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Pervouralsk in the Sverdlovsk Region. The respondent Government were represented 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 14 June 2007 the applicant was convicted of bribe-taking and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He was immediately taken into custody and placed in the administrative-detention cell within the Pervouralsk town police station.
On 19 June 2007 he was transferred to remand prison no. IZ-66/1 of Yekaterinburg where he stayed until 10 August 2007. During that period he was accommodated in the cells which were alleged to have been severely overcrowded.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention and under Article 6 about a hindrance to his correspondence with counsel.
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 16 September 2009, the Government's observations were forwarded to the applicant who was requested to submit observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 18 November 2009. No response was received.
By letter of 19 January 2010 sent by registered mail, the applicant was advised that the period allowed for submission of the 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 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. It appears from the acknowledgment-of-receipt card that the Court's letter reached the applicant's residence on or around 11 February 2010. Nevertheless, he did not reply to the Court's reminder.
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 § 1 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