CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 septembre 2010

.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 } .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 } .sBFD8E45 { width:185.97pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 35776/05 by Nazir Balabek Ogly SALIMOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23   September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 July 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Nazir Balabek Ogly Salimov, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Yekaterinburg. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, 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 4 February 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed bribery. He alleged that following the arrest police officers had kept him handcuffed with a bag on his head for several hours. On 6 February 2004 the applicant was placed in detention facility no. 1 in Yekaterinburg where he remained until 3 June 2005. According to the applicant during the entire period of his detention he was kept in overcrowded cells in very poor sanitary conditions. On 6 December 2004 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court found the applicant guilty of fraud and sentenced him to four years and six months' imprisonment. By the decision of 24 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated during his arrest, that the conditions of his detention in facility no. 1 had been appalling, that he had been unlawfully detained, that the investigating authorities and courts had committed numerous procedural violations during the excessively lengthy criminal proceedings and that hey had had severely restricted his rights of an accused. THE LAW By letter dated 29 January 2010 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 2 April 2010. By letter dated 31 May 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 2 April 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may 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. The applicant did not reply. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded 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 strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. André Wampach   Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar   President