FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 15467/04 by Dmitriy ZUYEV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section), sitting on 28 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

   Mr C.L. Rozakis , President, Mr L. Loucaides , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr A. Kovler , 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 29 March 2004,

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 Dmitriy Vasilyevich Zuyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1975. He is detained in the village of Sosnovka in the Mordoviya Republic . The respondent 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 18 June 2001 the applicant was arrested and charged with several counts of murder, robbery, destruction of property and unlawful possession of arms.

On 20 June 2003 the St. Petersburg City Court, sitting in a formation composed of a professional judge and two lay judges, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On 26 February 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed a part of the conviction but upheld the remainder of the judgment.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about ill-treatment and inhuman conditions of his detention from 2001 to 2004 .

2. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention about unlawfulness of his detention from 18 June 2001 to 14 August 2002 .

3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that lay judges in the formation were not chosen by lot in breach of the domestic law.

4. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that several articles, describing him as a criminal, were published in the press.

5. Under Article 8 the applicant complained that his correspondence was opened by the detention facility administration.

THE LAW

On 11 October 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.

On 1 December 2005 the Court asked the applicant to find a representative by 20 January 2006. The applicant did not reply.

On 6 February 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 12 April 2006.

On 10 March 2006 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 4 May 2006 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 did not reply.

On 19 December 2006 the applicant was reminded about the consequences of his failure to submit the observations.

To date the applicant has not submitted his observations.

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. He was also informed about the consequence of his failure to submit the observations. The applicant has not replied to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, it 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 the Court 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 un animously

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