FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 1752/07 Andrey Aleksandrovich ZHELEZOVSKIY against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 13 December 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Nina Vajić , President, Anatoly Kovler , Peer Lorenzen , Elisabeth Steiner , Khanlar Hajiyev , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , Julia Laffranque , judges, and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 November 2006 ,

Having regard to the partial decision of 1 October 2009 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Andrey Aleksandrovich Zhelezovskiy , is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Kemerovo . The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , Representative of the Russian Federation before the European Court of Human Rights .

The circumstances of the case

1 . Criminal proceedings

On 20 February 2002 Kh. ’ s body was discovered in his flat. The Tsentralniy District Prosecutor ’ s Office of Kemerovo opened a criminal investigation into Kh. ’ s death.

On 17 February 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murdering Kh .

On 19 February 2004 the Tsentralniy District Court of Kemerovo authorised the applicant ’ s detention pending investigation and trial. The court referred to the seriousness of the charges, negative references as to the applicant ’ s character and his prior conviction for a serious offence. The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial.

On 29 June 2009 the Kemerovo Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years ’ imprisonment. On 11 May 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal.

2. Conditions of detention

On 27 February 2004 the applicant was taken to Kemerovo no. IZ-42/1 remand prison. On arrival he was placed in a temporary detention cell ( « этапное помещение ») and was then transferred to cell no. 84.

The applicant was later detained in cell no. 83. He provided the following description of the conditions of his detention there.

The cell measured 35 sq. m and housed 20-30 inmates. They had the right to an hour ’ s exercise. If the temperature outside fell below -20 0 C, the outside exercise was cancelled and the inmates spent all day in the cell.

There was no regular water supply or access to fresh air in the cell. The toilet was located opposite the dining table. It was not separated from the other parts of the cell.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained of the conditions of his detention, the length and review of the pre-trial detention and the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He referred to Articles 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

By letter dated 8 February 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 12 April 2010 .

By an unsigned letter dated 7 March 2010 the applicant sent a copy of the Regional Court ’ s judgment to the Court. He did not submit any observation in response to those of the Government.

By letter dated 26 May 2010 , 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. 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