European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 14923/04
by Igor BOLOTIN
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 January 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 April 2004,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Igor Valeryevich Bolotin, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Moguchin in the Novosibirsk Region. The respondent Government were represented by Mrs 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.

On 1 April 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and murder. He was allegedly beaten by police officers.

On 7 May 2003 the Novosibirsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of robbery and murder and sentenced him to sixteen years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed.

On 15 October and 21 November 2003 the applicant asked the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to appoint a legal-aid lawyer for his representation at the appeal hearing.

On 10 December 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request for a legal-aid lawyer and decided to conduct the appeal hearing in the presence of the applicant and the prosecutor. On the same day the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 7 May 2003.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he was beaten by the police officers. He complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about irregularities in his orders concerning his detention. Finally, he complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the assessment made by the domestic courts and the lack of legal assistance before the appeal court.

THE LAW

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 Court observes that, by letter of 21 February 2008, the Government's observations were forwarded to the applicant who was requested to submit observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 24 April 2008. No response was received from the applicant.

By letter of 19 June 2008 sent by registered mail, the applicant was advised that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court would 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. No response has been received.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be considered as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court further considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of his complaints (Article 37 § 1 in fine). 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 of cases.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President