FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 41414/04 by Valeriy Vasilyevich FEDOSOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 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 Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 September 2004,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Va leriy Vasilyevich Fedosov, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Safonovo. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Nozdrya and Mr A. Mishonov, lawyer s practising in Moscow . The Russian Government (“the Government”) we re 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.

A. The applicant ' s infection with tuberculosis

On 17 June 1998 the applicant was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in connection with criminal proceedings brought against him. According to the applicant, during his pre-trial detention he underwent photofluorography examinations on two occasions, which confirmed that he did not have any lung diseases.

On 20 August 2000, following his conviction by the domestic courts, the applicant was transferred to detention facility OS-34/24 in the Republic of Komi to serve his sentence of imprisonment. According to the applicant, on his arrival, he underwent an obligatory medical examination, including photofluorography , which indicated that he was fit.

During a routine photofluorography examination in October 2000 the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis of both lungs in its active form.

In the periods from 2 November 2000 until 13 March 2001 and from 26 July until 1 August 2001 the applicant underwent medical treatment for the disease in detention facility OS-34/18, and his condition improved.

B. Civil proceedings in connection with the applicant ' s infection with tuberculosis

At some point the applicant brought civil proceedings against the authorities of detention facility OS-34/24, the Russian Ministry of Justice and the Russian Government. He complained that he had been infected with tuberculosis – a serious incurable disease – in detention facility OS-34/24 owing to the poor sanitary conditions and overcrowding of the cells in which he had been kept in that facility. He indicated, in particular, that he had had to share cells with inmates suffering from tuberculosis. The applicant claimed compensation for the damage to his health, reimbursement of his expenses for the medical treatment which he had undergone for his tuberculosis and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

On 29 December 2003 the Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi (“the Town Court ”) delivered a default judgment. The court considered it possible to examine the applicant ' s claim in his absence given that the latter was being kept in prison. In its judgment the court dismissed the applicant ' s claim.

At some point in 2004 the applicant was transferred to detention facility YaO-100/6 in the town of Roslavl .

The judgment of 29 December 2003 was served on the applicant on 25 June 2004. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal which bears the date of 30 June 2004.

On 19 August 2004 the Town Court refused the applicant ' s request to restore the time-limit for appealing against the judgment of 29 December 2003. This decision was taken in the applicant ' s absence, with reference to the fact of his imprisonment.

On 6 September 2004 the applicant appealed against the decision of 19 August 2004 to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi .

According to the applicant, he did not receive any reply to his appeal of 6 September 2004 apart from a decision by a judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi dated 22 September 2004 referring to a number of formal requirements which had not been met.

C. Civil proceeding in connection with the allegedly poor medical treatment

The applicant also brought civil proceedings in connection with the allegedly poor medical treatment which he had received for his tuberculosis in detention facility OS-34/18.

On 21 April 2003 the Town Court rejected the applicant ' s claim as unfounded. The court considered it possible to examine the applicant ' s case in his absence with reference to the fact of his imprisonment.

In a decision of 14 July 2003, taken in the applicant ' s absence, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi upheld the first-instance judgment on appeal. It is unclear when the applicant was notified of this decision.

D. The applicant ' s correspondence with the Court

In a letter of 17 January 2005 the applicant informed the Court that on 13 January 2005 an official of detention facility YaO-100/6 had given him the Court ' s letter of 25 November 2004. The letter had been stamped to the effect that it had been received by the detention facility on 10 December 2004. According to the applicant, the aforementioned official was unable to provide any explanations in reply to the applicant ' s questions concerning the censorship of his correspondence and the delayed delivery of the Court ' s letter.

In a letter of 26 September 2006 the applicant informed the Court that he had been released from the detention facility upon expiry of his term of imprisonment.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complain ed under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been infected with tuberculosis in facility OS-34/24 because of the poor sanitary conditions, overcrowding and the fact that he had been kept in cells with detainees who had had tuberculosis. He also complained under this head that his health had deteriorated because of the incorrect medical treatment he had received for his tuberculosis.

The applicant further alleged, relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, that all the court decisions in the civil proceedings brought by him had been taken in his absence and that he had been arbitrarily denied an opportunity to appeal against the judgment of 29 December 2003 and the decision of 19 August 2004.

Lastly, the applicant referred to Article 34 of the Convention, complaining of hindrance of his right of individual petition by the authorities.

THE LAW

By letter dated 5 October 2009 the Government ' s observations were sent to the applicant ' s representative s, who were requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 7 December 2009 .

By two letter s dated 17 February 2009 , sent by registered post to the applicant ' s representative s and the applicant respectively, the Court notified them that the period allowed for submission of the applicant ' s observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The attention of the applicant and his representatives 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. No response has been received to any of the Court ' s letters .

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 Christos Rozakis Registrar President