FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 34310/06 by Aleksey Nikolayevich POPOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis , President , Loukis Loucaides , Nina Vaji ć, Anatoli Kovler , Elisabeth Steiner , Khanlar Hajiyev , Dean Spielmann , judges , and Andr é Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 July 2006,

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

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksey Nikolayevich Popov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in the town of Kamensk-Shakhtinskiy in the Rostov Region . The respondent Government were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their new R epresentative, Mrs V. Milinchuk .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

In May 1991 the police department of the Checheno -Ingush Republic opened criminal proceedings against the applicant. The applicant was put on the list of fugitives from justice.

In November 1991 the applicant surrendered himself to the police. He was convicted of fraud by the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny and sentenced to two years ’ probation.

In 1993 the applicant completed his sentence and his criminal record was purged. However his name remained on the list of fugitives from justice.

The applicant has been repeatedly arrested by the Kamensk police because his name has remained on the list of fugitives from justice.

The applicant unsuccessfully asked police departments and prosecutor ’ s offices of different levels to delete his name from the list.

On 27 February 2004 the Kamensk Town prosecutor refused the application. He pointed out that he had no competence to remove the applicant ’ s name from the list and referred him to the police department of the Zavodskoy District of Grozny.

By letter of 24 March 2004, the head of the police department of the Zavodskoy District of Grozny informed the applicant that it was not possible to erase his name from the list because the archives of the police department had been destroyed during the military hostilities in Grozny .

The applicant complained to a court. On 31 August 2004 the Kamensk Town Court of the Rostov Region ordered that the Kamensk Town police department delete the applicant ’ s name from the list of fugitives from justice. The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 13 September 2004.

On 29 January 2007 the applicant ’ s name was erased from the list of fugitives from justice.

COMPLAINT

T he applicant complai ned about the authorities ’ failure to delete his name from the list of fugitives from justice and about repeated arrests .

THE LAW

By letter of 16 February 2007, the Government informed the Court that it had reached a friendly settlement agreement with the applicant. They enclosed a copy of the applicant ’ s letter addressed to the Court which reads as follows:

“On 31 January 2007 I received a confirmation that my name had been erased from the list of fugitives from justice... After that I signed a friendly settlement agreement with the Kamensk Town police department. I wish to withdraw my application... I don ’ t have any claims against the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Rostov Regional Department of Internal Affairs, or the Kamensk Town police department.”

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

...

(b) the matter has been resolved;

...

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.”

It follows from the applicant ’ s letter that the matter has been resolved at domestic level, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 ( b ) 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 discont inue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to s trike the case out of the Court ’ s list of cases.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the applic ation out of its list of cases.

             André Wampach Christos Rozakis              Deputy Registrar President