[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Petr Leonidovich VERESHCHAK v Russia - 160/04 [2008] ECHR 1708 (13 November 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1708.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1708

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 160/04
by Petr Leonidovich VERESHCHAK
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 November 2008 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 3 December 2003,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Petr Leonidovich Vereshchak, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Elektrogorsk, a town in the Moscow Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former 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.

In March 1994 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of several crimes and detained in custody. A car, 550 boxes of alcohol and official seals belonging to the co-operative of which the applicant was a head were seized.

On 15 March 1999 the Moscow Regional Court convicted the applicant as a leader of a gang and sentenced him to death.

On 15 December 1999 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment on appeal, but replaced the death penalty with 15 years’ imprisonment.

On 17 January 2000 the applicant was transferred to prison OD-1/T-2 of the Vladimir Region and put into cell 46 (building I) of prison hospital. From January 2000 to the moment of introduction of the application to the Court the applicant had been put into cell no. 46 of prison OD-1/T-2 hospital five times. In between he was detained in cell no. 21 (building II) measuring 25 square meters.

On 23 October 2002 the applicant sued in tort the administration of the detention facility claiming that he was not receiving necessary medical treatment. On 25 December 2002 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir dismissed the applicant’s claims. On 29 April 2003 the Vladimir Regional Court, in the applicant’s absence, upheld the judgment on appeal.

On 12 October 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the State Duma seeking to recover non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused to him by amendments to the Amnesty Act of 26 May 2000 which made him no longer eligible for clemency. On 4 April 2002 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims. Neither party was present at the hearing. On 20 March 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.

Later in 2002 the applicant brought a defamation action against a TV channel which broadcasted a documentary based on the applicant’s criminal case. On 18 February 2003 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant was absent from the hearing. On 22 September 2003 the Moscow City Court, in the applicant’s absence, upheld the judgment on appeal.

On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings seeking to recover damages caused to him as a result of allegedly unlawful seizure of his possessions in 1994. On 29 April 2004 the Armavir Town Court of the Krasnodar Region dismissed the applicant’s claim. The hearing took place in the applicant’s absence. The other party to the proceedings was present and made oral submissions. On 4 February 2005 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

THE LAW

On 3 September 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 4 December 2007 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 7 December 2007 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 1 February 2008.

On 18 January 2008 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected.

As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 1 February 2008, on 11 June 2008 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 11 June 2008 reached the applicant on 24 June 2008. No response followed.

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 was requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that 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 view of the above-mentioned, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case 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 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President