[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Sergejs ZELUDKOVS v Latvia - 3873/02 [2009] ECHR 735 (7 April 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/735.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 735

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

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 3873/02
by Sergejs ZELUDKOVS
against Latvia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 April 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,

Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 July 2001,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergejs Zeludkovs, is a Latvian non-citizen who was born in 1970 and at the time of submitting his application was serving his prison sentence in the Matīsa Prison, Rīga. The respondent Government are represented by Mrs I. Reine, their Agent.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 26 January 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed aggravated extortion and arbitrary conduct (patvarība) and criminal proceedings against him were initiated.

On an unspecified date it was decided to impose on the applicant detention on remand as a preventive measure.

On 11 April 2000 the applicant was officially charged with aggravated extortion and arbitrary conduct. It was decided not to change the preventive measure imposed on him.

On 5 May 2000 the pre-trial investigation of the case was completed and the case was transferred to the Rīga Regional Court for adjudication.

According to the applicant, on 19 September 2000 he applied to a judge of the Rīga Regional Court requesting that the preventive measure imposed on him be changed. He allegedly did not receive any reply in this respect.

On 7 March 2001, in reply to the applicant's request of 15 February 2001, the judge informed him that on 10 May 2000 it had been decided to leave the preventive measure imposed on him unchanged because he was accused of having committed aggravated criminal offences. She informed the applicant that he could submit his request about the change of the preventive measure during the adjudication of his case at first instance.

On 27 June 2001, in reply to the applicant's complaint of 18 June 2001, the judge informed him that there were no grounds for deciding on a change of the applicant's detention on remand at that time. She informed the applicant that he would be able to submit his request about a change of the preventive measure during the adjudication of his case at first instance.

According to the applicant, on 28 July and 29 November 2000 and on 31 January 2001 he applied to the judge of the Rīga Regional Court and on 16 January 2001 he applied to the presiding judge of that court, requesting that the adjudication of his case be speeded up and inquiring about the trial date. The applicant was allegedly informed in that respect that the trial date had not yet been set.

According to the applicant, on 28 February 2001 he commenced a hunger strike to protest against the delayed adjudication of his case, complaining that the delay was contrary to the requirements of Article 241 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

On 7 March 2001, according to the applicant, the judge of the Rīga Regional Court informed him that the trial date had been set for 13 June 2001 and he discontinued the hunger strike.

On 14 June 2001 the judge allegedly informed the applicant that adjudication of his case had been postponed for an indefinite period of time.

On 28 August 2001 the Rīga Regional Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated extortion and arbitrary conduct. The applicant has not provided any information as to the length of the prison sentence.

On 18 March 2002 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the first instance court.

On 31 May 2002 the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal.

COMPLAINTS

THE LAW

On 3 May 2007 the President of the Chamber to which the case had been allocated decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government and that the Government should be invited to submit written observations.

On 12 November 2007 the Government informed the Court about their position regarding a friendly settlement in this case.

On 6 December 2007 the applicant was invited to inform the Registrar about his position regarding a friendly settlement in this case.

By a registered letter of 13 March 2008 the Registrar repeatedly invited the applicant to inform about his position regarding a friendly settlement of this case by 14 April 2008. The letter was received by the prison administration on 27 March 2008.

By a letter of 3 November 2008 the Government notified the Court, upon the Registrar's request, that the applicant had been released from the prison on 26 January 2005 and noted the address where, according to the information at their disposal, the applicant left to after his release.

By a registered letter of 5 November 2008 the Registrar requested the applicant, at his last known address provided by the Government, to state his position regarding a friendly settlement of this case by 15 December 2008. The attention of the applicant was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provides that 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 the applicant does not intend to pursue his application.

The Court has not received any replies from the applicant to the letters mentioned above. Neither has the applicant informed the Court about his current address.

In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicant, who has not submitted any new address, does not intend to further pursue his application (see Koroniotis v. Germany (striking out), no. 66046/01, § 21, 21 April 2005). 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.

Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President