European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Gaygysyz Seyitgeldiyevich ESENOV v Russia - 16055/06 [2010] ECHR 1088 (17 June 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1088.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1088
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
16055/06
by Gaygysyz Seyitgeldiyevich ESENOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George
Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 April 2006,
Having regard to the Court's decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 1 of the Convention),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Gaygysyz Seyitgeldiyevich Esenov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lived before his arrest in the town of Vladimir. He is represented before the Court by Mr F. Bagryanskiy, a lawyer practising in Vladimir. The respondent 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.
On 10 December 2005 the applicant was arrested. Two days later he was brought before a Justice of the Peace who had found him guilty of a minor disorderly act and sentenced him to five days of administrative arrest. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
On 15 December 2005 a record of the applicant's arrest on a criminal charge was drawn up. Two days later the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir authorised his detention on remand, finding that there was a reasonable suspicion that between July 2004 and December 2005, without registration, the applicant had performed business activities, having acquired substantial profit. Subsequently the District Court extended the detention on remand on a number of occasions, citing the gravity of the charges and the applicant's liability to obstruct justice and re-offend.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his arrest on administrative charge had been unlawful and had lacked any grounds, that he had not been duly and promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest and that the entire period of his detention had been extremely long.
THE LAW
On 22 April 2010 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 12 May 2010 the Court received a letter from the applicant's lawyer, informing of the applicant's request to discontinue the examination of the case and to strike it from the Court's list of cases.
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 notes that the applicant requested the Court not to examine his application. The applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court 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 it considers that Article 29 § 1 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 1 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren
Nielsen Christos
Rozakis
Registrar President