CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 octobre 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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s4A0CEAF8 { width:194.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 59591/08 by Vladimir KHARITONOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7   October 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 November 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Vladimir Yuryevich Kharitonov, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lived before his arrest in Ivanovo. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Yefimov, an advocate practising in Ivanovo. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 2 May 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion committed in conspiracy with others. On 4 May 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ivanovo remanded him in custody. On 26 December 2007 the Ivanovo Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 28 February 2008. On 30 December 2007 the case was referred for trial. At the preliminary hearing on 28 February 2008 the Ivanovo Regional Court determined that the case should be returned to the Ivanovo regional prosecutor to have factual inconsistencies and legal defects remedied within five days. On 17 March 2008 the Ivanovo regional prosecutor's office received the case and resumed the proceedings. The applicant and his counsel received an updated bill of indictment. On 20 March 2008 the Ivanovo Regional Court extended the term of the applicant's detention for two months, until 21 May 2008. Counsel for the applicant filed a statement of appeal. He pointed out that the period between 29 February and 20 March 2008 had not been covered by any detention order and that under Russian law, no extension of the detention period beyond eighteen months was permissible. On 14 May 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the appeal. On 7 May 2008 the case was re-submitted for trial and since 23 June 2008 it was examined by a jury. On 6 November 2008 the Ivanovo Regional Court extended the term of detention of the applicant and ten other co-defendants for a further three months, until 7 February 2009. On 6 February 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the extension order of 6 November 2008. On 6 February and 5 May 2009 the Ivanovo Regional Court extended the applicant's and his co-defendants' detention until 7 August 2009. On 23 April 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the first of these extension orders on appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the extension orders of 20 March and 6 November 2008 were unlawful because the maximum detention period had already expired. He claims that the three-year-long detention period cannot be considered “reasonable”. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about an excessively long duration of criminal proceedings.   THE LAW The Court recalls Article   37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows: “1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... (c)     for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” The Court observes that, by letter of 4 January 2010, the Government's observations were forwarded to the applicant's counsel who was requested to submit observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 8   March 2010. No response was received. By letter of 22 April 2010 sent by registered mail, counsel for the applicant was advised that the period allowed for submission of the 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. It appears from the acknowledgment-of-receipt card that on 18 May 2010 the Court's letter reached the counsel's office. Nevertheless, he did not reply to the Court's reminder. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) 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.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President