FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 18792/03 by Aleksandr Bronislavovich KUPRYAKOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr A. Kovler , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr K. Hajiyev , Mr D. Spielmann , Mr S.E. Jebens , Mr G. Malinverni , judges ,

and A. Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 May 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 partial decision of 2 March 2006 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Bronislavovich Kupryakov , is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and is currently serving his sentence in correctional colony UK 272/2 of Angarsk , the Irkutsk Region . The applicant wa s not represented before the Court, however, he correspond ed with the Court through the Centre of Assistance to International Protection (“the Centre”). The Russian Government (“the 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 Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk .

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

On 1 November 2002 the Moscow Regional Court convicted the applicant of extortion, kidnapping, and large-scale theft, and sentenced him to fourteen years ’ imprisonment.

On 4 November 2002, before the judgment of 1 November 2002 became final, a daily newspaper – “ Moskovskiy Komsomolets ” – published an article disclosing some facts of the applicant ’ s biography and criminal file, which, in the applicant ’ s opinion, were false and humiliating, i.e. the applicant was referred to as a “criminal leader” alias “ Kuper ” and the “head of a gang”, who was “sentenced to death” by a certain criminal group.

The applicant brought proceedings against the newspaper for defamation.

Meanwhile, on 1 July 2003 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal.

On 2 March 2004 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant ’ s civil claim. The applicant was absent from the hearing. At the same time, the respondent ’ s representative was present and made oral submissions. As regards the applicant ’ s absence, the court indicated that the applicant had asked to examine the case without him. It held on the merits that the information contained in the publication could not be refuted, because it represented assumptions rather than statements and was accurate.

The applicant appealed against the judgment on the ground that the hearing had taken place in his absence. He also complained that the publication, having appeared before his conviction became final, influenced the hearing of his case before the second-instance court and pre-determined the outcome of the proceedings.

On 16 August 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal, having ignored the applicant ’ s argument about the mistake of the first-instance court to indicate his unwillingness to take part in the proceedings.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he could not attend the hearing of his civil case before the first instance court and on appeal, which impaired the principle of procedural parity and the overall fairness of the proceedings.

THE LAW

On 2 March 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 17 July 2006 the Government ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received.

The Court asked the applicant to submit his written observations by 12 September 2006 . On 23 August 2006 on behalf of the applicant the Centre asked the Court to extend the time-limit allowed for submission of the applicant ’ s observations until 12 November 2006. The request was explained by the remote location of the colony where the applicant was serving his sentence and the delays in correspondence between the Centre and the applicant the latter circumstance was causing. On 4 September 2006 the time-limit for submission of the applicant ’ s observation was extended until 12 November 2006.

On 25 September 2006 the Eng lish 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 12 November 2006 , on 13 April 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application. On 17 May 2007 the Court received the advice of receipt showing that its letter of 13 April 2007 had successfully reached the Centre on 16 May 2007. No response followed neither from the Centre nor from the applicant.

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. The Court infers therefore 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 continue the examination of the case.

In view of the above, 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 strike the application out of its list of cases.

André Wampach Christos Rozakis              Deputy Registrar President