CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 20 mai 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s5EFE2D63 { width:162.45pt; display:inline-block } .s6951C4F0 { width:187.33pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 46502/99 by Oleg Nikolayevich SHULMIN against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20   May 2003 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi , judges , and Mrs F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 June 1998, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the parties’ submissions; Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Oleg Nikolayevich Shulmin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Kemerovo Region. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 14 July 1998 the applicant was convicted of swindling by the Nolinskiy District Court of the Kirov Region. The applicant, who had no legal representative, appealed to the Kirov Regional Court. Despite his several requests to be present at the appeal hearing, the Kirov Regional Court on 22 October 1998 reviewed his appeal in his absence and confirmed the sentence of 14 July 1998. The prosecutor was present at the appeal hearing and submitted his opinion on the case. On 10 December 1998 the Constitutional Court found the relevant provision of the Criminal Procedural Code which allowed appeals to be reviewed in the absence of the convicted person or his representative, but in the prosecutor’s presence, to be unconstitutional. By their letter of 31 August 2000 the Government informed the Court that the ruling of the Kirov Regional Court of 22 October 2000 had been quashed by the Supreme Court by way of supervisory review, and the case had been remitted to the Regional Court. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6   §   3   (b)   and (c) of the Convention that he was not permitted to be present at the appeal hearing of his case, which took place in the presence of the prosecutor. THE LAW The complaint was communicated to the Russian Government on 30   May 2000. On 31   August 2000 the Government submitted their observations, which were transferred to the applicant for comments. On 22   November 2000 the applicant submitted his response to the Government’s observations. On 30   March 2001 the Registry requested the applicant to indicate if he preferred to submit further observations in writing or at an oral hearing. Having received no reply, by registered letters of 19   November 2002 and 17   January 2003, the Registry of the Court renewed its request and warned the applicant that should the reply not be received before 28   February 2003, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. Both registered letters were returned by the post as unclaimed. In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant has lost interest in his application. Furthermore, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Françoise Elens-Passos   Nicolas Bratza        Deputy Registrar   President