CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 3 janvier 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s48B1C878 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.25pt } .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 } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s1043DC39 { width:193.42pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 8257/04 by Denis IVANCHENKO against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3   January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Loukis Loucaides, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoli Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens, judges, and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 February 2004, 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 Denis Aleksandrovich Ivanchenko, is a national of Turkmenistan who was born in 1976 and at the material time lived in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Khasavov, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The respondent 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. On 22 August 2002 the Ashgabat Police Department in Turkmenistan instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, following a complaint by a private person. On 5 September 2002 the investigator of the Ashgabat Police issued a decision to place the applicant in custody. On 22 December 2002 the applicant received a Russian entry visa in Cairo, Egypt. The applicant then left Russia for Turkey but on 25 July 2003 he came back to St. Petersburg. On 30 July 2003 the applicant was arrested by Russian police at a railway station in Moscow on the basis of the arrest warrant issued in Turkmenistan. On 10 October 2003 counsel for the applicant complained about unlawfulness of the applicant’s arrest and detention to the Moscow City Court and petitioned for his release. On 14 October 2003 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow heard an application by the Moskovsko-Yaroslavskiy Transport Prosecutor’s Office for the applicant’s placement in custody and granted it. By letter of 24 October 2003, counsel for the applicant asked the Moscow City Court to add to the case-file his authority form for representation of the applicant, copies of complaints to the Prosecutor General’s Office and a permit to visit the applicant in the detention centre. On 11 November 2003 the Moscow City Court discontinued the proceedings on the complaint about the unlawful detention, finding that no decision on the extradition request had been taken yet. The decision did not indicate that it was amenable to a further appeal. On 1 December 2003 the Moscow City Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s judgment of 14 October 2003. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention that his arrest and detention were unlawful in the domestic terms. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the lawfulness of his detention had not been reviewed until 14 October 2003. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a), (b), (c) of the Convention that both the Meshchanskiy District Court and the City Court held hearings without advance notice to either him or counsel of his choosing, and that his counsel had not been allowed to study the case-file.   THE LAW The Court notes that, by letter of 13 June 2007, the Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicant’s counsel who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 14   August 2007. No response was received from the applicant. By letter of 12 September 2007 sent by registered mail to the applicant’s counsel, 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. According to the acknowledgment-of-receipt card, the letter was delivered on 19 September 2007, but no response has been received. The Court does not have any other addresses where the applicant could be contacted. 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   Loukis Loucaides   Registrar   President