BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Pavel ZVEREV v Russia - 54662/07 [2010] ECHR 1752 (7 October 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1752.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1752 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
54662/07
by Pavel ZVEREV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 October 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George
Nicolaou,
judges,
and
Søren Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 October 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Pavel Vladimirovich Zverev, is a Russian national who was born in 1983 and lived in Tomsk before his arrest. He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Filippov, a lawyer practising in Tomsk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 15 December 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a drug-related offence. On the following day he was placed in remand prison no. IZ-70/1 of Tomsk where he was held until at least 26 November 2008, the date of his most recent correspondence with the Court. According to him, the cells were severely overcrowded.
On 30 November 2006 the applicant was convicted of several drug-related offences. On 19 July 2007 the Tomsk Regional Court upheld the conviction at final instance.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inhuman conditions of his detention in the remand prison.
The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention on remand had not been founded on sufficient reasons.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about an excessive length of the criminal proceedings, that he had not been given adequate time and facilities to study the trial record in its entirety, and that the trial court had distorted the testimony by witnesses and also misdirected itself in law.
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 16 September 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 18 November 2009. No response was received.
By letter of 19 January 2010 sent by registered mail, counsel for 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. The letter was returned as unclaimed.
On 10 June 2010 a letter in the same terms was sent to the applicant's address in the correctional colony. The applicant did not reply.
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 § 1 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 Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
