CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 novembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s299839C6 { width:212.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 27472/07 Igor Ivanovich ZAKHAROV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22   November 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Peer Lorenzen,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 April 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Igor Ivanovich Zakharov, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and is serving a prison sentence in Kemerovo. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant In   March 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and robbery and brought to the police station for questioning. On 28   March 2005 the Zavodskoy District Court of Kemerovo authorised the applicant’s detention pending the investigation. He remained in custody pending the investigation and trial. On 30   May 2007 a jury found the applicant guilty as charged and the Kemerovo Regional Court sentenced him to sixteen years and one month’s imprisonment. On 26   December 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. 2.     Conditions of detention (a)     Remand prison no.   IZ-42/1 in Kemerovo On 28   March 2005 the applicant was placed in remand prison no.   IZ-42/1 in Kemerovo. According to the applicant, he was detained in a cell measuring 35 sq.   m. The number of inmates in the cell varied from 20 to 30. He maintained that he had been confined to the cell for practically twenty-four hours a day. The food had been of a low quality. The water supply was irregular, especially in the summer. The toilet had been in the immediate vicinity of the dining table and was not separated from the living area of the cell, thus offering no privacy. (b)     Correctional colony no.   IK-43 in Kemerovo On 5   February 2008 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no.   IK-43 in Kemerovo. He was assigned to a dormitory measuring 100   sq.   m where the number of inmates exceeded 100. According to the applicant, the water supply was not regular and, in any event, not sufficient to meet the needs of the dormitory. There was only one shower room with the capacity for twenty persons, while the number of the inmates in the colony was 1,500. Many of them were suffering from tuberculosis and had lice. The food was of a low quality. The dormitory was dimly lit. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained of an unlawful arrest and detention, ill ‑ treatment in police custody and inhuman conditions of detention. He further complained that he had not received a fair trial. The applicant relied, in particular, on Articles   3, 5 and 6 of the Convention. THE LAW By letter dated 26   January 2011 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 30   March 2011. By letter dated 30   March 2011 the applicant asked the Court to extend the time-limit for submission of his observations. Such extension was granted and the new time-limit was set for 13   May 2011. By letter dated 24   June 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired 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 received this letter on 1   August 2011. However, no response has been received. 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.   Søren Nielsen   Nina Vajić   Registrar   President