European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 25102/03
by Fedor BOCHKOV
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,

Khanlar Hajiyev,

Dean Spielmann,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,

and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 April 2003,

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

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Fedor Ivanovich Bochkov, is a Belarus national who was born in 1961 and lives in Mogilev, Belarus. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Belyakov, a lawyer practising in Kostroma, Russia. The respondent Government are represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, 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 20 February 2003 a deputy Prosecutor General of Belarus ordered the applicant’s arrest on suspicion of armed robbery. His name was put on the list of fugitives from justice.

On 27 March 2003 the applicant was arrested in Moscow. On the same day the Russian police informed the Belarus police about the applicant’s arrest.

On 11 April 2003 the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation received a request for the applicant’s extradition from the Prosecutor General of Belarus. The Belarus prosecutor stated that the applicant had been charged with participation in an organised criminal enterprise, theft, robbery and unlawful possession of arms.

On 7 May 2003 the Prosecutor General’s Office ordered the applicant’s extradition to Belarus. The applicant and his counsel challenged the extradition order before a court.

On 21 May 2003 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s detention pending extradition. It did not give any further grounds for detention. The applicant was represented and assisted by an interpreter. On 9 June 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order on appeal.

On 6 June 2003 the applicant was extradited to Belarus.

On 25 June 2003 the Moscow City Court confirmed the extradition order of 7 May 2003. Counsel for the applicant attended the hearing.

On 28 August 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decision of 25 June 2003 on appeal. It found that the Moscow City Court had complied with all the procedural requirements, but for the requirement of the applicant’s presence at the hearing. However, the applicant could not attend the hearing because he had been extradited to Belarus.

COMPLAINTS

THE LAW

On 29 May 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 17 September 2007 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 23 November 2007.

On 12 October 2007 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected.

As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by the indicated time-limit, on 22 January 2008 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. The applicant’s representative received the letter on 6 February 2008. To date he has not replied.

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 applicant was advised that he was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He was subsequently reminded thereof. He was also informed about the consequence of his failure to submit the observations. The applicant has not replied to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, it considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.

In these circumstances the Court considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President