FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 34659/03 by Sergey Aleksandrovich POSTNIKOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis , President, Nina Vaji ć , Anatoly Kovler , Elisabeth Steiner, Khanlar Hajiyev , Dean Spielmann , Sverre Erik Jebens , judges, Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 October 2003,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention) ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergey Aleksandrovich Postnikov , is a Russian national who was bo rn in 1977 and lives in Zaozerni y , a town in the Krasnoyarsk Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk , former 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.

On 17 May 2000 the applicant was detained pending trial on suspicion of having committed a crime. He was detained in allegedly appalling conditions.

On 14 August 2000 the Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk convicted the applicant of complicity to robbery and sentenced him to three years six months ’ imprisonment. On an unspecified date the conviction became final.

On 25 September 2000 the applicant was transported to prison UK ‑ 272/25 of Vykhorevka of the Irkutsk Region.

In summer 2001 the applicant contracted tuberculosis. In July 2001 he was transported to prison UK-272/27 of Vykhorevka for treatment.

In July 2002 the applicant was again transported to prison UK-272/25.

On 11 February 2003 the Bratskiy District Court of the Irkutsk Region examined the applicant ’ s application for conditional release from prison and dismissed it.

On 10 July 2003 the Irkutsk Regional Court quashed the above decision on appeal and remitted the matter for a fresh examination.

On 29 August 2003 the Bratskiy District Court granted the applicant ’ s request for conditional release from prison.

On 9 September 2003 the applicant was released.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article s 3 about conditions of his pre- t rial detention and conditions in prisons UK-272/25 and UK-272/27 of Vykhorevka of the Irkutsk Region.

He complained under Article 5 about his allegedly unlawful detention from 11 February 2003 to 9 September 2003.

The applicant further complained under Article 8 that the appalling prison conditions had affected his physical and mental health.

Finally, he complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the prison UK-272/25 officials had seized his cassette player and the food that his relatives sent him.

THE LAW

On 12 June 2007 the application was communicate d to the respondent Government.

On 8 August 2007 the Government ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 14 August 2007 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 16 October 2007.

On 30 October 2007 the English version of the Government ’ s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for t he submission of the applicant ’ s observations remained unaffected.

As the applicant ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 16 October 2007 , on 1 February 2008 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. As it follows from the advice of receipt which returned to the Court, the letter of 1 February 2008 reached the applicant on 12 February 2008 . No response followed.

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

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his 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 notes that the applicant was requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to contin ue the examination of the case.

In view of the above-mentioned, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President