European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Yuriy PETROV v Russia - 30321/07 [2010] ECHR 305 (9 February 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/305.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 305
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
30321/07
by Yuriy PETROV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9 February 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 June 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Yuriy Dmitriyevich Petrov, a Russian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Slavyanovka. He is represented before the Court by Mr P. Finogenov, a lawyer with the Centre of Assistance to International Protection in Moscow. The respondent Government were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The applicant's conviction
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 22 September 2002 the applicant was involved in a fight with Mr Z. who later died of his wounds.
While the trial lasted, the applicant was placed into custody on several occasions and subsequently released against the undertaking to appear.
On 2 December 2005 the Bagrationovsk Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment. The applicant was escorted to remand prison no. IZ-39/1 of Kaliningrad where he stayed until December 2006.
On 12 December 2006 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal and the applicant was sent to serve his sentence in correctional colony no. IK-13 in the Kaliningrad Region.
B. Correspondence with the Court
On 12 December 2008 the application was communicated to the respondent Government. The President also decided to give priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
On 15 April 2009 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 17 July 2009.
By letter of 14 September 2009 sent by registered mail, the applicant was advised that the period allowed for submission of the 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.
On 15 September 2009 the Court received a faxed letter from Mr Finogenov who explained that he had been recently appointed to represent the applicant and asked for an extension of the time-period for the submission of the observations. The President agreed to grant the extension until 15 October 2009.
By letter of 15 October 2009, Mr Finogenov asked for a further extension of the time-limit. The President granted a second extension until 13 November 2009.
On 13 November 2009 Mr Finogenov informed the Court that he had been unable to contact the applicant by mail or by means of a telegramme. For that reasons, he asked for a third extension until 15 December 2009. His request was refused by the President.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the appalling conditions of detention in remand prison no. IZ-39/1. He complained under Article 5 that the decision to place him into custody had not been justified. Finally, he complained under Articles 6 and 13 that the proceedings in his criminal case had been unfair.
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 the applicant did not submit any observations within the time-limit established for their submission. Nor did his newly-appointed counsel submit observations within the extended time-period. After the third request for extension had been refused by the President, neither the applicant nor his counsel contacted the Court again.
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