CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 avril 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA32F7E3F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s24C63AC { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD33C961E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sD5EF6EC4 { width:234.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 50188/99 Igor Aleksandrovich SHEPELEV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23   April 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   Gaukur Jörundsson ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   A. Kovler , judges , and   Mrs   S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application registered on 9 August 1999, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant is a Russian national. He was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant The applicant was placed in police custody on 1 December 1995 at the Lefortovo Police Department of Moscow. After several days, the applicant was transferred to a temporary detention ward ( изолятор временного содержания ). On 5   December   1995 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on suspicion of credit card fraud. Following the order of a public prosecutor of 21 December 1995 confirming the applicant’s detention on remand, the applicant was placed in the investigative isolation ward IZ-48/1, also known as “Matrosskaya Tishina” ( следственный изолятор ИЗ-48/1 «Матросская Тишина» ). On 21 October 1997 the Cheremushkinskiy Intermunicipal District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of swindling (Article   147   §   3 of the Criminal Code). The applicant was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment in minimum security conditions, and a confiscation order was made. He was also ordered to pay compensation to the defrauded banks. The applicant’s appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Criminal Chamber of the Moscow City Court on 7 October 1998. The applicant had not been summoned to the hearing. Subsequently the applicant brought several unsuccessful petitions for a supervisory review of the conviction. He also sought to challenge the sentence by way of direct appeals to the President of the State and the Human Rights Commissioner. On 8 June 1999 the Dzerzhinsky District Court of the Kaluga Region ( Дзержинский районный суд Калужской области ) granted the applicant conditional early release. The applicant was released from prison on 9   June 1999. 2.     The applicant’s initial detention On his arrest on 1 December 1995 the applicant was initially detained at the Lefortovo Police Department of Moscow ( Отделение внутренних дел Лефортово г. Москвы ). He states that he was placed in a basement cell without daylight, heating or ventilation He claims to have confessed under duress after interrogations at night. On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to an unspecified temporary detention ward ( изолятор временного содержания ), where he was detained for several days in allegedly unsanitary conditions. The ward was infested by rats, lice, cock-roaches, fleas and bed-bugs. 3.     The applicant’s detention on remand After the applicant’s detention on remand was confirmed by the public prosecutor on 21 December 1995, the applicant was transferred to the investigative isolation ward IZ-48/1, also known as “Matrosskaya Tishina” ( следственный изолятор ИЗ-48/1 «Матросская Тишина» ). The applicant claims that he was confined there until the final determination of the criminal charge against him, i.e. until 7 October 1998. The applicant claimed to have been confined in overcrowded and unhygienic conditions resulting, inter alia , in skin infections and the spread of other diseases. The applicant left the prison in October 1998 with a diagnosed case of tuberculosis. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant originally complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that he was convicted and subsequently imprisoned for an inability to meet his civil debts. Under Article 7 of the Convention he alleged that he was punished for an offence (a bank overdraft) that did not constitute a criminal charge at the time when it was committed. 2.     He challenged the legality and appropriateness of his detention on remand under Article 5 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. He also relied on the latter provision in support of his grievance about an alleged confiscation of his internal and travel passports and driving license, which had been mistaken during the investigation for a credit card. 3.     The applicant invoked Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the conditions of his detention. 4.     Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant alleged a lack of procedural safeguards against unlawful detention. 5.     Under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, the applicant could be understood as complaining about the loss of his personal belongings and documents in the course of searches conducted by law-enforcement authorities. 6.     Under Article 6 § 3 (a)-(d) of the Convention, the applicant challenged the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against him. 7.     Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 was also invoked. THE LAW The Court notes that on 10 September 2001 the Registry invited the applicant to submit his comments on the Government’s observations on the application before 5 November 2001. The applicant did not reply. On 13 November 2001 the Registry warned the applicant by registered mail that unless his comments were received before 25 December 2001 the Court might conclude that he did not wish to pursue his application. The letter was received by the applicant on 19 November 2001, but no reply followed. In these circumstances, having regard to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant has lost interest in his application and no longer intends pursuing it before the Court. 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 examination of the application to be continued. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President