FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 27930/03 by Aleksey Georgiyevich SLYUNCHENKO 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 Vajić , Anatoli Kovler , Elisabeth Steiner , Sverre Erik Jebens , Giorgio Malinverni , judges, and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 June 2003 ,

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 Georgiyevich Slyunchenko , is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Bryansk . 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 Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk .

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

On 15 December 2001 the applicant was arrested and charged with aggravated robbery and theft.

On 30 October 2002 the Bezhitskiy District Court of Bryansk convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seven years ’ imprisonment.

On 5 January 2003 the Bryansk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 3 about the conditions of his detention pending trial.

2. The applicant complained under Article 5 about unlawful detention on remand.

3. The applicant complained under Article 6 about an unjust outcome of the proceedings, the trial court ’ s failure to obtain attendance of witnesses and an allegedly excessive length of the proceedings.

4. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 2 that the investigator had expressed an opinion about his guilt during the pre-trial investigation.

5. The applicant complained under Article 13 that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of the length of his detention and the conditions of his detention.

THE LAW

On 25 September 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 20 December 2006 the Government ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 22 February 2007.

On 17 January 2007 the English version of the Government ’ s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant ’ s observations remained unaffected.

As the applicant ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by the indicated time-limit, on 28 June 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. The applicant ’ s relative signed, by proxy, for the receipt of the letter on 30 July 2007. To date the applicant has not replied.

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 applicant was advised that he was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He was subsequently reminded thereof. The applicant has not replied to date. The Court infers therefrom that he does not intend 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 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