European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Andrey KOMAROV v Russia - 29422/05 [2010] ECHR 255 (4 February 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/255.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 255
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
29422/05
by Andrey KOMAROV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 February 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina
Vajić,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
George
Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 July 2005,
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 Andrey Vladimirovich Komarov, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Moscow. He was represented before the Court by Ms S. Nagaytseva, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 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 24 March 2005 the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of fraud, referring to “sufficient grounds to believe” that the applicant would abscond or re-offend. On 25 April 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order on appeal.
On 17 May 2005 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention for a further two months. In doing so, it mentioned that the applicant was charged with several serious crimes punishable with a term of imprisonment and that he could abscond, re-offend, threaten witnesses or interfere with the investigation. On 21 June 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal.
On 19 July 2005 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court issued a further extension order for a period of one month. The reasons for the extension were identical to those in the order of 17 May 2005.
The criminal case was subsequently referred to trial to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow.
On 22 August 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court extended, by one decision, the period of detention in respect of the applicant and two other defendants.
On 27 January 2006 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court issued a further extension in respect of all three defendants, referring to the gravity of the charges and information on their personalities. On 10 February 2006 counsel for the applicant submitted an appeal against it.
On 24 March 2006 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court convicted the applicant of abuse of power, fraud, unlawful penetration into the living premises, and unlawful deprivation of liberty and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. Both co-defendants were also found guilty.
On 25 October 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal but reduced the applicant's sentence to four years and six months' imprisonment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention that the arrest warrant did not mention any factual circumstances justifying his placement in custody, that he was not allowed to study the materials in the case file, and that the pre-trial detention was excessively long and not founded on relevant and sufficient grounds.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he was convicted of a crime which had been instigated by the Internal Security Department of the anti-narcotics police.
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 30 June 2009, the Government's observations were forwarded to the applicant's counsel who was requested to submit observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 7 October 2009. No response was received.
By letter of 30 November 2009 sent by registered mail, the applicant's counsel was advised that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. Her 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. It appears from the acknowledgment-of-receipt card that the Court's letter reached the law office of the applicant's counsel on 9 December 2009. Nevertheless, counsel did not reply to the Court's reminder.
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 Nina Vajić
Registrar President