FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14305/03
by Igor Leonidovich LOSHCHILIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
and André Wampach, ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 April 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Igor Leonidovich Loshchilin, is a Russian national who was born in 1961. He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in the town of Novoulyanovsk. The respondent Government (“the 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.
In early 2002 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on suspicion of illicit drug trafficking.
On 1 April 2002 the Zasviyashskiy District Court of the town of Ulyanovsk examined his case, found him guilty and sentenced him to seven years and six months of imprisonment for drug trafficking.
Acting on the advice of his counsel, the applicant failed to bring appeal proceedings in respect of the judgment. Later, on several occasions he unsuccessfully tried to institute supervisory review proceedings in connection with the judgment.
In appears that in mid-April 2002 the authorities brought further proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of drug trafficking, this time in an organised group.
On 16 September 2002 the case of the applicant and nine other co‑accused was examined by the Leninskiy District Court of the town of Ulyanovsk. The court found the applicant guilty of selling drugs. In view of his past sentence, the applicant was sentenced cumulatively to thirteen years of imprisonment.
The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Regional Court.
On 29 January 2003 the first instance conviction was upheld by the Regional Court. The court rejected the applicant’s appeal, having stated that the conviction was lawful, justified and confirmed by the body of evidence collected during the investigation and examined at the trial.
On 19 June 2003 a judge of the Regional Court examined and rejected a request by the applicant for supervisory review in this respect.
The applicant alleges that he has developed a stomach ulcer because of the criminal proceedings against him.
COMPLAINTS
1.  The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that his two convictions had been unjust, that the cases against him had been fabricated and that he had developed a stomach ulcer as a result of the proceedings and detention.
2.  Relying on Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained about his two convictions. As regards the second set of proceedings, he criticised the courts’ assessment of the evidence in the cases and the fact that he could not properly participate in the proceedings in so far as the evidence given by the two key witnesses against him, K. and P., was concerned.
THE LAW
On 20 May 2008 the President gave notice of the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 12 September 2008.
By letter of 16 September 2008 the applicant was requested to submit, by 18 November 2008, his comments on the Government’s observations.
As the applicant had not replied, by letter of 26 January 2009, sent by registered mail, his attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court can strike a case out of its list where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that an applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
The Court notes that, despite the Court’s letters of 16 September 2008 and 26 January 2009, the applicant has not submitted his observations in reply to those of the Government. Nor has he made any other submissions to the Court.
Against this background, the Court considers that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the application. The Court finds no reasons concerning respect for human rights warranting the further examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate 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.
André Wampach	Nina 
	Deputy Registrar	President