CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 décembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s1D4E86C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s45B0D6D5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s64C69EF9 { width:181.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 17431/02 by Yuriy Yegorovych TELEGIN against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11   December 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger, judges ,   and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 March 2001, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Yuriy Yegorovych Telegin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Brovary, Kyiv region, Ukraine. He was represented before the Court by Mr Shelepa, a lawyer practicing in the city of Zhytomyr, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs V. Lutkovska and Mr Y. Zaytsev. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 28 August and 18 September 2000 the Brovarskiy public prosecutor in the Kyiv Region instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for forgery and the embezzlement of State property. On 5 September 2000 the applicant signed a written undertaking not to abscond. On 22 September 2000 the applicant was charged with an abuse of power, the embezzlement of State property and forgery. On the same day, by the decision of the prosecutor, the applicant was arrested and detained on remand. On 16 October 2000 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision to the Brovary Town Court. On 19 October 2000 the Brovarskiy District Court of the Kyiv Region rejected the request of the applicant’s lawyer to release the applicant, stating that “there were no specific reasons for his release and the sanction for the crimes with which the applicant had been charged provided for imprisonment”. On 17 November 2000 the Kyiv Regional Court rejected the request of the applicant’s lawyer to review the decision of 19 October 2000 under the extraordinary procedure. On 16 October and 5 November 2000 the applicant’s lawyer submitted requests to the prosecutor of the Brovarskiy District and to the prosecutor of the Kyiv Region to release the applicant on bail. On 20 October and 18 November 2000 the prosecutor of the Brovarskiy district refused to release the applicant. On 1 February 2001, after the case was transferred to the court, the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to release the applicant on bail, but the court refused to. On 2 March 2001 the court remitted the case for an additional investigation and ordered the applicant’s release on bail. On 7 March 2001, upon the receipt of the bail surety, the applicant was released. On 23 July 2001 the court amnestied the applicant and closed the case. B.     Relevant domestic law   The Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, 1960 At the material time, according to the Articles 148 and 149 of the Code, the prosecutor was entitled to issue a warrant for the arrest of an accused person if there were sufficient grounds to believe that the individual would abscond, obstruct the establishment of the truth in a criminal case, or pursue criminal activities. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention of the unlawfulness of his arrest and detention. In particular, the applicant complained that there had been no grounds for his detention. The applicant further complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the unsubstantiated refusal of the prosecutor and the court to release him. The applicant finally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, without any further specification, of the lack of impartiality of the judge and of an unfair hearing on his request for release pending trial. THE LAW Notice of the application was given to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints on 2 December 2005. On 10 January 2006 the applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, he has failed to respond to registered letters dated 18 April and 7 July   2006, sent to the applicant and to his lawyer, warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list. Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 this application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article   29   §   3 of the Convention should be discontinued. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President