[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Igor PAVLOV v Russia - 40203/03 [2009] ECHR 412 (17 February 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/412.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 412

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

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 40203/03
by Igor PAVLOV
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 February 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 November 2003,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Igor Borisovich Pavlov, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in the Tver Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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.

On 8 November 2000 the applicant was arrested. His subsequent detention was extended on a number of occasions, mainly with reference to the gravity of the charges against him.

On 22 June 2004 the Kalininskiy District Court of the Tver Region found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. On 12 May 2005 the Tver Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal but reduced the sentence to five years’ imprisonment.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that certain detention orders were unlawful and that his detention had been extended solely with reference to the gravity of the charges against him.

The applicant complained under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention about the allegedly excessive length of his detention and criminal proceedings against him.

Lastly, the applicant raised a number of complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention in relation to the trial.

THE LAW

After notice of the present application had been given to the respondent Government, the applicant was asked to designate a representative under Rule 36 § 4 (a) of the Rules of Court.

By letter dated 25 July 2006 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 26 September 2006.

The applicant submitted his observations in reply on 1 September 2006.

By letter of 10 November 2006, the applicant informed the Court that he wanted to withdraw the application since he was unable to retain a representative.

In reply, the applicant was granted leave to present his own case under Rule 36 § 2 in fine. Consequently, he was no longer required to appoint a representative. On 10 April and 6 September 2007 he was asked to indicate whether he maintained his wish to withdraw the application. The applicant received the second letter on 15 September 2007. However, no response has been received.

By letter dated 21 October 2008, sent by registered post, the Court reiterated the above request. The applicant’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. 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