FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 3131/03 by Anton Yuryevich ZHARKOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 July 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 Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 December 2002,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Anton Yuryevich Zharkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lived until his arrest in the village of Lisino-Korpus in the Leningrad Region. He is now serving his prison sentence in the Murmansk Region . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev , the 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 20 February 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and car hijacking. His detention was extended a number of times. Each time authorities grounded extensions on the gravity of the charges against the applicant. Either the applicant or his lawyer was not present at hearings at which detention matters were examined.

On 20 December 2002 the Tosno Town Court found the applicant guilty of robbery and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On 30 April 2003 the Leningrad Regional Court upheld the conviction in substance. The applicant’s lawyer did not attend the appeal hearing.

On several occasions in 2001, 2002 and 2004 the applicant was detained in appalling conditions in the temporary detention ward of the Tosnenskiy District police department. From March 2001 to January 2003, save for the periods when he was detained in the temporary detention ward, the applicant stayed in detention facility no. IZ-47/1 of St Petersburg . According to the applicant, he was detained in cells which were severely overcrowded.

COMPLAINT S

Invoking Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the appalling conditions of his detention from 2001 to 2004, the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand, absence from the hearings, lack of the speedy review of his detention matters, absence of legal representation at the appeal hearing and various procedural violations allegedly committed by investigation authorities and domestic courts during the criminal proceedings against him.

THE LAW

The Court received the most recent letter from the applicant on 31 August 2005.

On 17 March 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 12 July 2006 the Government’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 18 July 2006 the Court asked the applicant to submit written observations by 19 September 2006 . The Court’s letter was sent by registered mail. On 24 August 2006 the Court received an advice of receipt showing that the applicant had received the letter of 18 July 2006 on 2 August 2006.

On 3 October 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 19 September 2006 , on 26 April 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application. As it follows from the advice of receipt, the letter of 26 April 2007 reached the applicant on 10 May 2007. 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 also does not lose sight of the fact that the most recent letter from the applicant was received on 31 August 2005. 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 continue the examination of the case.

In these circumstances it considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck 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