FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 11462/02 by Sergey Vladimirovich NILOV 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 6 February 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 Sergey Vladimirovich Nilov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in St Petersburg . He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Poliantsev, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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 2 February 1998 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of having committed a crime . According to the applicant, he was detained in remand pris on IZ 47/1 in St Petersburg and spent there “almost four years”.

Th e applicant describe d the conditions of his detention as follows. P rison IZ 47/1 was built in 1896 and initially meant to accommodate one thousand detainees. It appears that the prison has never been renovated since that time. At the time of the applicant ’ s detention it accommodated around ten thousand inmates. Throughout his detention t he applicant had no more than 0. 6 m² of personal space as opposed to 4 m² required by the applicable domestic regulations. Neither did he have a personal sleeping place, nor was provided with any bedding. Th e applicant submitted that he had been deprived of an eight-hour sleep and one-hour walk to which he had been entitled under the said regulations. He also submitted that he had been held in anti-sanitary conditions. The quality of food and medical assistance was below the standard. Because of the overcrowding and lack of the necessary medications the epidemic of tuberculosis, AIDS, hepatitis and other diseases struck the whole colony, every third inmate suffering from one of the mentioned illnesses.

In a letter dated 1 October 2001 and addressed to one of the applicant ’ s fellow inmates, the deputy prosecutor in charge of supervision of the execution of punish ments in S t Petersburg stated that the situation in the remand prison IZ 47/1 in St . Petersburg was very serious indeed and that this held true in respect of all the detention facilities run by the Ministry of Justice. The letter admitted that i t was impossible for the respective authorities to abide by the requirements of the provisions regulating conditions of detention in remand. In particular, due to the overcrowding, it was unfeasible to offer the inmates 4m² of personal space, as well as to provide them with personal sleeping places.

On an unspecified date the criminal case against the applicant was transferred to the St . Petersburg City Court. The applicant submits that the trial court commenced the examination of his case with almost three years delay.

I t appears that a defence counsel Mr K. represented the applicant throughout the pre-trial investigation and during the subsequent court hearings.

At a hearing of 4 April 2001 the applicant requested to admit Mr Poliantsev as his defence counsel.

By a decision of 23 April 2001 the court re jected the request referring to the fact that Mr Poliantsev was undergoing a forensic psychiatric expert examination and thus could not be admitted to the proceedings as the applicant ’ s defender.

On 4 April 2001 the applicant re- i ntroduced a motion for Mr Poliantsev to be admitted to represent him . He submits that by the time of his second request the examination of Mr Poliantsev had been terminated and that he had been ruled sane by the experts.

By a decision of the same date the court rejected the applicant ’ s motion on the ground that Mr Poliantsev was remanded in custody and was not able to provide him with a “full-fledged defence”. The court also noted that the applicant was adequately represented by Mr K.

By a judgment of 17 May 2001, which was forty-five pages long, the S t Petersburg City Court convicted the applicant on one count of robbery and two counts of extortion and sentenced him to eight years ’ imprisonment in a high security colony and confiscation of property. By the same judgment the court convicted four applicant ’ s co-accused on numerous counts of robbery, extortion and theft and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment.

By a decision of th e same date the court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his co-accused for banditry, other counts of robbery, abduction and infliction of serious bodily harm because the pro secution dropped those charges.

The applicant and Mr K appealed against the trial court judgment.

On 22 January 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia examined the applicant ’ s appeal.

In respect of the applicant ’ s allegations that the trial court had violated his right to defence by refusing to let Mr Poliantsev represent him the appeal court noted the following.

“ ... The member of a human rights organisation [Mr] Poliantsev was not admitted to participate in the examination of the case because he was remanded in custody. His liberty being restricted, he was unable to provide [Mr] Nilov [the applicant] with a full-scale defence. [Mr] Nilov was represented, both during the pre-trial investigation and throughout the court proceedings, by Mr K , a lawyer whose services he never renounced.”

By a decision of the same date the court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the first instance judgment in full.

COMPLAINTS

1. Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complained about the conditions of detention in the remand prison IZ 47/1. He further submit ted under Article 7 § 1 that the detention in appalling conditions had been a “punishment without law” and a heavier penalty than his imprisonment in a high security colony ordered by the fin al decision of 23 January 2002.

2 . Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant alleged that the criminal proceedings against him had lasted too long. The applicant submitted that the excessive length indicated that the courts had been biased.

3 . U nder Article 6 § 3 (c) t he applicant complained that the courts had denied his request to admit Mr Poliantsev as his defence counsel. He submitted that the refusal had been contrary to the domestic law and deprived him of a fair hearing.

THE LAW

On 5 September 2005 the President of the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 13 December 2005.

By letter of 7 March 2006 the applicant was requested to submit, by 1 May 2006, his comments on the Government ’ s observations.

In view of the absence of the applicant ’ s reply, by letters of 6 March and 20 April 2007, sent by registered mail, the applicant ’ s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provides that the Court could strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances led to the conclusion that an applicant did not intend to pursue the application.

The Court notes that, despite the Court ’ s letters of 7 March 2006, 6 March and 20 April 2007 , the applicant has not submitted h is observations in reply to those of the Government . Nor has he made any other submissions to the Court.

Against this background, the Court considers that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the application. The Court finds no reasons concerning the respect for Human Rights warranting the further examination of the case. With reference to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the application should be struck out of its list of cases.

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