European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Oleg Anatolyevich PYATAK v Russia - 43719/04 [2010] ECHR 1386 (2 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1386.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1386
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
43719/04
by Oleg Anatolyevich PYATAK
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 2 September 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 18 October 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Oleg Anatolyevich Pyatak, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Novoaltaysk. He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in Barnaul. The Russian 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.
On 25 March 2004 at 6.15 p.m. the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having inflicted serious bodily injuries causing death as well as having committed extortion and robbery.
On 27 March 2004 the Novoaltaysk Town Court (Новоалтайский гродской суд – the “Town Court”) ordered the applicant's detention for two months starting on the date on which he had been arrested, that is until 25 May 2004, 6.15 p.m.
On 25 May 2004 the Novoaltaysk prosecutor (прокурор г. Новоалтайска) returned the case for further investigation.
On the same date at 6.15 p.m. the period of the applicant's pre-trial detention as set by the court order of 27 March 2004 expired. However, the applicant was not released and remained in custody until the next morning.
On 26 May 2004 at 10.15 a.m. the applicant was delivered to the Town Court, which, at the request of the investigator in charge, extended the applicant's pre-trial detention until 11 June 2004.
In a separate ruling (частное постановление) of 26 May 2004 the Town Court also drew the attention of the Novoaltaysk prosecutor to a breach of procedural law by the investigator in charge. The court pointed to the fact that although the term of the applicant's pre-trial detention had expired on 25 May 2004 at 6.15 p.m., the investigator in charge had not sought an extension of the applicant's detention before 10.15 a.m. on 26 May 2004, in breach of Article 109 § 8 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.
The applicant and his lawyer challenged the extension order by way of an appeal, arguing that the applicant's detention was unlawful and irregular in that, in particular, the Town Court had extended it a day after it had expired, in breach of Article 109 § 8 of the Russian Criminal Code.
In a decision of 9 June 2004 the Altayskiy Regional Court (Алтайский краевой суд) upheld the first-instance extension order of 26 May 2000. As regards the arguments advanced by the applicant and his lawyer, the court stated that the fact that the applicant's detention was extended a day after it had expired could not render the extension order of 26 May 2004 invalid.
The applicant also complained about his unlawful detention between 6.15 p.m. on 25 May 2004 and 10.15 a.m. on 26 May 2004 to the Novoaltaysk prosecutor's office. In a letter of 31 May 2004 the prosecutor's office replied that, indeed, the applicant had been unlawfully kept in custody for several hours, however, that had been due to the fact that the case file had been returned for further investigation, which had made the extension of the applicant's detention necessary – on a date which was after the final date of the right to apply for an extension of pre-trial detention (as set out in Article 109 § 8 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure). Similar letters followed in reply to the applicant's subsequent complaints.
Thereafter the applicant sought to have criminal proceedings against the investigator in charge instituted for unlawful deprivation of liberty, but in vain. The Novoaltaysk prosecutor's office decided to dispense with criminal proceedings, stating that even though the applicant had been unlawfully kept in pre-trial detention for several hours, the investigator's actions lacked the constituent elements of the crime in question. The prosecutor's office indicated, in particular, that the investigator in charge had received the applicant's case file and prepared an application seeking an extension of pre-trial detention on the evening of 25 May 2004, outside the working hours of the Town Court, and that therefore the relevant documents had only been examined by the Town Court the next morning. On 9 June 2005 the Altayskiy Regional Court dismissed in the final instance the applicant's complaint about the Novoaltaysk prosecutor's office refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the investigator in charge.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention that he had been unlawfully detained between 6.15 p.m. on 25 May 2004 and 10.15 a.m. on 26 May 2004. He further relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, challenging as unfair the court extension order of 26 May 2004.
THE LAW
By letter dated 29 June 2009 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 15 September 2009.
By letter dated 25 January 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired 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 applicant's mother received this letter on 18 February 2010, having signed the advice of receipt to that effect. However, no response followed.
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 strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President