[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Sergey KOZLOV v Russia - 25249/03 [2009] ECHR 226 (8 January 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/226.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 226

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

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 25249/03
by Sergey KOZLOV
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 January 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,

and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 June 2003,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergey Viktorovich Kozlov, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and lives in the town of Berezovskiy, Sverdlovsk Region. He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Churkina, a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg. 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.

The applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft but later released under an undertaking to appear before the court. He was detained again in 2003. By judgment of 16 December 2003, the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. It appears that the applicant was released on 3 June 2005 but detained again in September 2005 on new charges.

It appears that the applicant was detained in Yekaterinburg no. 1 remand centre between 2002 and 2006. The applicant unsuccessfully complained to various public authorities about the conditions of his detention. According to him, the cells were constantly overcrowded.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about conditions of his detention.

The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his arrest and detention were unlawful.

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not been afforded an opportunity to prepare for a remand hearing and in general terms about deficiencies in the preliminary investigation. He also relied on Articles 8, 13 and 17 of the Convention.

THE LAW

In February 2008 the parties informed the Court that they had reached a friendly settlement and enclosed a copy of the settlement agreement signed by the applicant and Ms V. Milinchuk, the then Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court. Under the terms of the agreement the Russian authorities undertook to pay the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR), including value added tax, in full and final resolution of the case. The above sum will be paid to the applicant within three months of the date of notification of the Court's decision.

It was further stipulated that, subject to the fulfilment of the above undertaking, the applicant had no further claims against the authorities of the Russian Federation in respect of the facts set out in his application before the Court.

The Court refers to Article 37 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:

“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...

(b)  the matter has been resolved; ...

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 takes note of the settlement reached between the parties. The Court has no reason to doubt that the amount specified in this settlement will be paid to the applicant as agreed. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the matter was resolved at the domestic level, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it at present to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck 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