European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 9884/02
by Dmitriy Mikhaylovich BROSHEVETSKIY
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Rait Maruste, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 December 2001,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Mikhaylovich Broshevetskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Nova Odessa. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 30 June 1998 a police officer of the Kirovograd City Police Department visited the applicant at home and questioned him about two car thefts.

Next day the applicant came to the police station where he was allegedly ill-treated by three police officers who were forcing him to confess to the car thefts.

On 2 and 3 July 1998 the applicant received medical help and underwent a medical examination which established numerous injuries.

On 4 July 1998 the Deputy Prosecutor of Kirovograd ordered the applicant's detention on remand for two months on suspicion of involvement in car thefts. The applicant appealed.

On 13 July 1998 the applicant was formally charged with theft.

On 28 July 1998 the Kirovsky District Court of Kirovograd allowed the applicant's appeal against the Deputy Prosecutor's decision of 4 July 1998 and ordered his release.

Following his release under an undertaking not to abscond, the applicant received medical treatment for injuries obtained in detention.

On 14 August 1998 the Deputy Prosecutor of Kirovograd, acting on a criminal complaint filed by the applicant, instituted criminal proceedings against the three police officers allegedly involved in the applicant's ill treatment. These proceedings were twice closed on 18 October 1999 and 14 July 2000 but resumed following the decisions of the Leninsky District Court of Kirovograd of 23 December 1999 and 15 December 2000.

On 30 March 2001 the investigator terminated the proceedings concerning the ill-treatment of the applicant. The applicant's belated appeal to the court against such termination was rejected by the same court on 3 January 2002.

As to the criminal proceedings against the applicant, they were suspended and renewed on several occasions and, according to the information in the file, they were still pending.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his detention in the Kirovograd City Police Department. Without referring to any specific provision of the Convention, the applicant further complained that the criminal proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time and of the lengthy restriction on his freedom of movement.

THE LAW

By letter dated 11 March 2008 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 25 April 2008.

By letter dated 2 June 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 25 April 2008 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. However, no response 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.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Claudia Westerdiek Rait Maruste
Registrar President