FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 46630/14 A.M. against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 31 March 2015 as a Chamber composed of:

Elisabeth Steiner , President, Khanlar Hajiyev , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque , Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos , Ksenija Turković , Dmitry Dedov , judges, and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 June 2014 ,

Having regard to the information submitted by Government and to the reply of the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant is a Russian national, who was born in 1982 and is detained in Nizhniy Novgorod. The President decided that the applicant ’ s identity was not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He was represented before the Court by Ms O.A. Sadovskaya, a lawyer of the Committee against Torture, a n interregional non-governmental organisation based in Nizhniy Novgorod . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

2. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about several counts of ill-treatment in the pre-trial detention area of a correctional colony IK-14 of Sukhob ezvodnoye situated in a remote district of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region, some 100 km from Nizhniy Novgorod.

3. On 27 June 2014 the Acting President of the Section decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and requested the Government until further notice, to ensure, by appropriate means, the applicant ’ s safety in detention, if necessary, by transferring the applicant to a different pre ‑ trial detention facility; as well as to ensure that the applicant be immediately examined by medical experts independent from the penitentiary system in connection with the injuries he had allegedly received as a result of several counts of the ill-treatment. The Government were further requested, under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, to submit additional information on the case.

4. On 5 August 2014 the Government submitted the information requested. It transpired from their submiss ions, in particular, that a pre ‑ investigation inquiry had been conducted into the applicant ’ s ill ‑ treatment complaint lodged with the authorities on 11 June 2014 and that on 14 July 2014 a criminal case had been opened in respect of the applicant ’ s allegations. The applicant ’ s medical examination by a medical practitioner of a civil hospital had been conducted on 18-20 June 2014. The investigation was pending at the material time. Their submissions were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit comments in reply by 20 September 2014.

5. In the meantime, on 20 August 2014 the applicant was transferred from the correctional colony IK-14 to a different pre-trial detention facility, SIZO ‑ 1 in Nizhniy Novgorod.

6. It appears that at some point he withdrew his complaint at the domestic level and refused to cooperate with a lawyer of his own choosing who had represented him in the domestic criminal proceedings.

7. On 29 September 2014 the applicant ’ s representative informed the Court that the applicant wanted to withdraw the application. She enclosed a copy of the applicant ’ s handwritten letter dated 16 September 2014 to that effect containing, in particular, an instruction to the representative to notify the Court of the withdrawal and a decision to further invalidate the respective authority form issued for the representative.

8. It follows from the representative ’ s clarifications in reply to the Court ’ s further specific inquiry that the applicant produced the abov e statement on 16 September 2014 in the presence of the representative ’ s colleagues, two lawyers of the Committee against Torture, during their meeting with the applicant in the new detention facility in Nizhniy Novgorod. The lawyers had visited him in connection with his earlier refusal to maintain his domestic ill-treatment complaint and to cooperate with his lawyer in the domestic criminal proceedings. The applicant expressed his surprise that the application was still pending before the Court. He had maintained his position as regards the domestic complaint and produced a written refusal to pursue the application before the Court. The lawyers explain ed the consequences of the withdrawal of the application but the applicant did not change his mind. Whereas the applicant ’ s position remained unclear to the lawyers, they found no evidence that the applicant was subject to further physical duress in the remand centre of Nizhniy Novgorod.

9. Since 16 September 2014 the lawyers of the Committee against Torture attempted to contact and visit the applicant again on several occasions, but he refused to meet them.

THE LAW

10. The Court takes note of the applicant ’ s intention to withdraw his application.

11. The Court observes that the applicant ’ s complaint concerned alleged ill ‑ treatment in a detention facility and that for some time after the introduction of his application he remained detained in the same correctional colony. The Court reiterates that the applicant ’ s position might be particularly vulnerable when he is held in custody with limited contacts with his family or the outside world (see, in the context of Article 34, Knyazev v. Russia , no. 25948/05, § 116, 8 November 2007, with further references). The Court therefore has to address the applicant ’ s letter of intention not to pursue his application with caution. For instance, the Court recalls that it had to deal, in the context of Article 34, with situations where the statements of withdrawal were subsequently revoked by the applicants as produced under pressure (see, in so far as relevant, Knyazev, cited above, and Enache v. Romania, no. 10662/06, §§ 69-71, 1 April 2014 ). However, the facts of the present application are different from the above cases in several aspects. The Court notes that since 20 August 2014 the applicant has no longer been detained in the pre-trial are a of the correctional colony IK ‑ 14 where he had allegedly been ill-treated. It follows from the representative ’ s submissions that the applicant firmly insists on his decision to withdraw the application and, furthermore, refuses to meet his former representative and her colleagues. The Court does not find sufficient evidence in the representative ’ s latest clarifications to conclude that the applicant has been subjected to pressure in detention in the Nizhniy Novgorod remand centre, or that his statement of 16 September 2014 was produced under such pressure.

12. Finally, the Court notes the existence of a number of cases against Russia pending before it raising issues of alleged ill-treatment in detention facilities.

13. In the light of the foregoing, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, finds it established that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court does not have sufficient factual basis to consider that the application discloses special circumstances – and finds no reasons of a general character regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols – which require the further examination of the present application by virtue of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in fine .

14. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to discontinue the applicati on of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Done in English and notified in writing on 23 April 2015 .

Søren Nielsen Elisabeth Steiner Registrar President