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!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
13472/04
Mikhail Vladimirovich SUKHOMLINOV
against Russia
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 June
2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina
Vajić,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Julia
Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre
Sicilianos,
Erik
Møse,
judges,
and Søren Nielsen,
Section Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 6 March 2004,
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 Mikhail Vladimirovich Sukhomlinov, is a Russian
national, who was born in 1976 and lived, prior to his arrest, in the
Ryazan Region. He died on 27 July 2007. He was represented
before the Court by Ms A. Stavitskaya, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were 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
24 March 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery.
- From
April 1997 to October 2003 the applicant was detained in remand
prisons nos. IZ-77/1, IZ-77/3 and IZ-77/5 in Moscow. During his
trial he was, on numerous occasions, transported from the prisons to
the courthouse and back, allowing him to participate in the
proceedings.
- On
18 July 2001 the City Court convicted the applicant, along with
seventeen other persons, of banditism, robbery and attempted murder
and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment.
- On
10 September 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld
the judgment on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about
conditions of his pre-trial detention and transport to and from the
courthouse. He further complained under Article 5 § 3
of the Convention about the length of his pre-trial detention and
under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the
criminal proceedings against him.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
- On
27 July 2007 the applicant died. According to the applicant’s
representative, at the time her contact with the applicant had long
been lost and she had not been aware that he had deceased.
- On
4 September 2008 the President of the Chamber to which the case
had been allocated decided to give notice of the application to the
Government of Russia. Both parties were invited to submit written
observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.
- On
20 March 2009 the applicant’s representative submitted her
observations in response to the Government’s submissions and
the claims for just satisfaction. As she explained later, she did so
in the absence of any contact with the applicant or his family
knowing that it was generally difficult for the prisoners to maintain
contact with their lawyers and in compliance with the applicant’s
earlier instructions to continue to represent him even if there was
no contact with him.
- On
an unspecified date the applicant’s half-brother Mr Abramov
learnt of the applicant’s death. On 24 March 2009 he
obtained the death certificate. On 27 March 2009 he informed the
applicant’s representative of the applicant’s death and
expressed an interest in pursuing the latter’s application
before the Court. The relevant documents reached the Court on
22 April 2009.
THE LAW
- The
Government argued that the present application was closely linked to
the person of the deceased applicant and its further examination was
not justified.
- Mr
Abramov asked the Court to recognise him as the applicant’s
successor in view of their kinship.
- The
Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant died
in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account the
statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members
expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. It
has done so most frequently in cases which primarily involved
pecuniary, and, for this reason, transferable claims. However, the
question whether such claims are transferable to the persons seeking
to pursue an application is not the exclusive criterion. In fact,
human rights cases before the Court generally also have a moral
dimension and persons near to an applicant may have a legitimate
interest in seeing to it that justice is done even after the
applicant’s death (see, among other authorities, Horváthová
v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005).
- In
the present case the Court observes that the applicant’s
representative pleaded the case and submitted the just satisfaction
claims on the applicant’s behalf in the absence of any contact
with him. She did not indicate to the Court whether she had tried to
contact him or his relatives at all upon receipt of the Court’s
letter informing her that the Government had been given notice of the
applicant’s case. For reasons unknown, Mr Abramov got in
touch with the applicant’s representative long after the
applicant’s death.
- In
view of such developments in the case, the Court does not discern any
evidence to suggest the existence of close ties between the applicant
and Mr Abramov. In this respect the Court notes that Mr Abramov does
not appear to have been even aware of the applicant’s death in
July 2007. He obtained the applicant’s death certificate only
on 24 March 2009, that is almost two years after the applicant
died. At the same time he informed the applicant’s
representative and subsequently the Court thereof, without providing,
however, any explanation as to such a belated notification. Nor did
Mr Abramov claim that he was the applicant’s heir or that he
was personally affected by the alleged violations.
- In
such circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that Mr Abramov’s
intention to pursue his deceased half-brother’s application
before the Court has any moral dimension. It considers that Mr
Abramov cannot claim a legitimate interest justifying the continued
examination of the application.
- Furthermore,
the Court does not see any question of general interest which would
justify the continued examination of the complaint (see, by contrast,
Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, §§ 24-28,
ECHR 2003-IX).
- Having
regard to the above, the Court considers that it is no longer
justified to continue the examination of the application and
concludes pursuant to Articles 37 § 1 (c) of the
Convention that the application should be struck out of its list of
cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić
Registrar President
