European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 14176/02
by Igor Anatolyevich ANDREYEV
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 1 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, 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 20 February 2002,

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 Igor Anatolyevich Andreyev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 971 and lives in Kirovograd. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, from the Ministry of Justice.

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

On 2 September 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in several robberies committed by an armed gang. On the same date the Kirovograd City Prosecutor ordered his detention on remand until 2 December 1997. By decisions taken on 1 December 1997 and 2 February 1998 by, respectively, the Kirovograd Regional Prosecutor and the Deputy Prosecutor General, the applicant’s detention on remand was extended for a total period of one year, i.e. until 2 September 1998.

In the course of the pre-trial proceedings, the applicant dismissed his defence attorney as he could not afford to pay the fee. The applicant’s request to the Kirovograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office, which was dealing with his case, to appoint a free legal aid lawyer was rejected.

On 17 August 1998 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant and his twelve co-defendants were given access to the case file.

On 4 February 1999 the Kirovograd Regional Prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and transmitted the case file to the Kirovograd Regional Court for trial proceedings.

During the trial proceedings the applicant unsuccessfully requested the Kirovograd Regional Court on several occasions to appoint a legal aid attorney to conduct his defence.

On 12 October 1999 the Kirovograd Regional Court decided that further pre-trial investigations were necessary and ordered the applicant’s detention on remand for two months pending those investigations.

On 3 March 2000, the Kirovograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office returned the applicant’s case file to the Kirovograd Regional Court for trial proceedings. On 5 April 2000, a preparatory hearing was held before a judge of the Kirovograd Regional Court. The judge considered that the case was ready for trial and decided, without giving any reasons, that the applicant was to remain in detention on remand.

On 17 April 2001, at the applicant’s request, the Kirovograd Regional Court appointed the applicant’s wife as his representative in the trial proceedings.

On 19 April 2004 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (the Kirovograd Regional Court as renamed on 29 June 2001) convicted the applicant of having participated in several robberies as a member of an armed gang and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment with deduction of the time spent in detention on remand. This judgment was unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court by one of the applicant’s co defendants. However, neither the applicant nor his wife filed an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court against his conviction and sentence.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that his detention on remand had been unlawful and had lasted unreasonably long. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention that he had been denied free legal aid.

THE LAW

By letter dated 30 January 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 14 March 2008.

By letter dated 10 April 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 14 March 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. The new deadline – 26 May 2008 – was fixed for the applicant for submission of his observations in reply to those of the Government. The applicant received this letter on 18 April 2008. 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. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President