CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG4
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 décembre 2007
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1211DEC000414406
- Date
- 11 décembre 2007
- Publication
- 11 décembre 2007
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleStruck out of the list
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .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 } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD79BB263 { width:196.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 4144/06 by Viktor LABUSHEV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11   December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis, President,   Mr   A. Kovler,   Mrs   E. Steiner,   Mr   K. Hajiyev,   Mr   D. Spielmann,   Mr   S.E. Jebens,   Mr   G. Malinverni, judges, and Mr S. Nielsen, Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 December 2005, 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 Viktor Pavlovich Labushev, is a Russian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Blagoveshchensk. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, the 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. In 2004 a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of tax evasion. On 13 May 2005 the Blagoveshchensk Town Court of the Amur Region began trial hearings. The applicant signed an undertaking to appear. On 1 June 2005 the Town Court decided to remand the applicant in custody because he did not appear at the hearing without good cause. On the same date counsel for the applicant lodged a statement of appeal with the registry of the Town Court. On 8 June 2005 the prosecutor filed his comments. On 14 June 2005 the Amur Regional Court examined and rejected the appeal. Counsel for the applicant was not present. On 10 June 2005 the Town Court convicted the applicant of tax evasion and sentenced him to a fine of 200,000 Russian roubles. On 12 July 2005 the Amur Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that his arrest amounted to inhuman treatment. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the decision to take him into custody was not justified. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that counsel’s appeal against the detention order of 1 June 2005 was not examined. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the trial court evaluated the evidence to his disadvantage. Under Article 6 § 3 (d), he complained that the court founded the conviction on the written deposition by the witness A. who had repudiated his deposition before the trial.   THE LAW The Court notes that, by letter of 26 June 2007, the Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicant who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 28   August 2007. No response was received from the applicant. By letter of 12 September 2007 sent by registered mail, the applicant was advised that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court would strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. No response has been received and the letter was returned as unclaimed. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be considered as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the Court’s list of cases. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
- Formation
- 4
- Date
- 11 décembre 2007
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1211DEC000414406
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral