CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 juin 2007

.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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s53D63747 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s429060B7 { width:27.84pt; display:inline-block } .sF873CD3B { width:150.45pt; display:inline-block } .sDE8613E { width:14.83pt; display:inline-block } .s38DD214 { width:190.13pt; display:inline-block } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 9641/02 by Yuriy Alekseyevich PETROCHENKOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mr   M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 November 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 deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Yuriy Alekseyevich Petrochenkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in the town of Vyshniy Volochyok, the Tver Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained, in particular, about ill-treatment by an investigator, various irregularities of his pre-trial detention as well as alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings in his case. He relied on Articles   3, 5 and 6 of the Convention. On 16 December 2005 the Court communicated these complaints to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 14 April 2006. By letter of the Registry of the Court of 25 April 2006 the applicant was requested to submit, by 20 June 2006, his comments on the Government’s observations. In view of the absence of the applicant’s reply, by letter of the Registry of 23 April 2007, sent by registered mail, the applicant was informed that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 20   June 2006, and that no extension of the time-limit had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provided that the Court could strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances led to the conclusion that an applicant did not intend to pursue the application. THE LAW The Court notes that despite the Registry’s letters of 25 April 2006 and 23 April 2007, the applicant has not submitted his comments to the Government’s observations, nor has he made any other submissions to the Court since the communication of the case. Against this background, the Court considers that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the application. The Court finds no reasons concerning the respect for Human Rights warranting the further examination of the case. By reference to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention be discontinued and 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.   Françoise E lens -P assos   Peer Lorenzen   Deputy Registrar   President