European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 16279/05
by Vasiliy Petrovich KUCHKOV
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 March 2005,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vasiliy Petrovich Kuchkov, is a Russian national who was born in 2005 and lives in Rostov-Na-Donu. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former 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.

In 2004 the applicant, together with another author, Ms I., wrote an article entitled Two Misfortunes of the Konstantinovsk District (Две беды Константиновского района) in which he expressed his views on the social and economic situation in the district and the activities of its head, Vladimir Safronenko. The article was published on 21 October 2004 in the newspaper Priazovskiy Kray (Приазовский край), issue no. 42.

The article contained the following passages:

“After the return to power... of V.K. Safronenko... life in the district 'came to a standstill'.”

“It is not any better for those living and working in farms, the managers of which are among the close friends of the district's head... The work is progressing consistently, especially as far as the purchase – with standing corn, for free – of the farmers' shares of land is concerned.”

“But then again... the head has thoroughly studied the nuances of the market economy (for himself): it is notable that his daughter runs a network of shops in Sochi, known for its dark nights, where the caring daddy calls by several times a year.”

“We were also told a story about the enigmatic disappearance of 250 million roubles from Agrobank, and a mysterious 'district fund', which takes part of the harvest although no trace of it can be found in the district.”

“In Konstantinovka they say openly that cannabis used to be dried quite safely on the third and fourth floors of the site...”

Mr Safronenko brought an action for defamation against the editors of the newspaper Priazovskiy Kray, the applicant and Ms I. in the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don and sought damages in the amount of 300,000 Russian roubles (RUR). He claimed, in particular, that five passages contained in the article were untrue and damaging to his honour and reputation.

On 4 February 2005 the Leninskiy District Court found for the claimant. It ordered the editors of the newspaper Priazovskiy Kray to publish a retraction of the information contained in the article. The court also awarded the claimant RUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage, to be paid jointly by all the defendants.

The defendants appealed against the judgment. The applicant claimed that the first-instance court had failed to draw a distinction between statements of fact and value judgments. The court had also found that the applicant had failed to support statements of fact by appropriate evidence, whereas such evidence had been submitted to the court. Furthermore, the court had ordered the defendants to publish a retraction of all the information contained in the article, whereas the action brought by the claimant had concerned only five passages. Accordingly, in the operative part of the judgment the court had gone beyond the scope of the claimant's action.

On 28 February 2005 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

THE LAW

The Court, having regard to the events that occurred after the notice of the application had been given to the Russian Government and after they had submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, considers that it does not have to examine the present application and that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied. That provision, in its relevant part, reads:

“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

1. 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.”

In this respect the Court notes that on 11 January 2007 the Registry informed the applicant in a letter that notice of the application had been given to the respondent Government. On 22 June 2007 the Registry sent the applicant the Government's observations on the admissibility and merits of the application and invited him to submit his observations in reply by 24 August 2007. The applicant did not reply. On 30 November 2007 the Court advised the applicant in a letter sent by registered mail that he had not complied with the time-limits for submission of his observations, and that in the absence of an application for extension of the time-limits the Court might conclude that he was no longer interested in pursuing the application and decide to strike it out of its list of cases. The applicant did not reply. On 24 January 2008 the Court received its letter of 30 November 2007 returned by the post on account of the applicant's failure to claim it and the expiry of time-limits for its storage. The Court received no further correspondence from the applicant.

In these circumstances, having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President