European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Valeriy Viktorovich MARYENKO v Russia - 11970/04 [2010] ECHR 1747 (18 October 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1747.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1747
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
11970/04
by Valeriy Viktorovich MARYENKO
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 October 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
judges,
and Søren Nielsen,
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 March 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Valeriy Viktorovich Maryenko, a Russian national who was born in 1978 and was detained in Stavropol. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Article 3, 5, and 6 of the Convention that he had been deprived of an opportunity to study the documents submitted by the prosecutor in support of the latter’s request to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
The application was communicated under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits on 31 October 2008. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was, invited to submit his own observations by 8 January 2009. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 23 March 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the 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. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
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
