FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26525/05
by Yuriy Leonidovich PURIS
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25 November 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 9 June 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Yuriy Leonidovich Puris, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Taganrog. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Kapanzhi, a lawyer practising in Taganrog. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, 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.
On 3 February 2004 the applicant, a high-ranking police officer at the time, was arrested on suspicion of theft of drill pipes and malfeasance. On 13 May 2004 the applicant was released. On 14 May 2004 the applicant was arrested again and remained in custody pending investigation and trial.
On 21 February 2005 the Town Court found the applicant guilty of theft, malfeasance and subornation of perjury and sentenced him to five and a half years’ imprisonment. The court based its findings on the testimonies of numerous witnesses, including eyewitnesses and other defendants, physical evidence and documents, including a list of incoming and outgoing telephone calls made and received by the applicant on his mobile phone.
The applicant appealed, alleging that the Town Court had based its verdict on inadmissible evidence. He submitted, inter alia, that his telephone records had been obtained without prior judicial authorisation.
On 26 April 2005 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction in substance and reduced his imprisonment by three months.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleged a violation of Article 5 § 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. In particular, he complained that there had been no grounds for his initial arrest and that his detention from 14 May 2004 to 21 February 2005 had been unlawful.
The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that the court had been biased and his conviction had been based on inadmissible evidence.
The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that collection of the information concerning the telephone calls he had made and received on his mobile phone had been carried out without prior judicial authorisation.
The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the regional prosecutor had refused to institute criminal proceedings against the assistant prosecutor and police officers involved in the criminal investigation against him.
THE LAW
By letter dated 17 July 2009 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 18 September 2009.
By letter dated 19 November 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may 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 applicant’s representative received this letter on 9 December 2009. However, no response has been received.
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