FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 25260/02 by Vitaliy Vasilyevich KRUTOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section), sitting on 25 January 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr L. Loucaides , President, Mrs N. Vajić , Mr A. Kovler , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr K. Hajiyev , Mr D. Spielmann , Mr S.E. Jebens , judges, and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 June 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 Vitaliy Vasilyevich Krutov, is a Russian national who was born in 1937 and was serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the Irkutsk Region . The respondent Government are 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 11 November 1998 the Proletarkskiy District Court of Tver found the applicant guilty of attempted murder and sentenced him to seven years and six months ’ imprisonment. That judgment became final.

The acting prosecutor of the Tver Region lodged before the Tver Regional Court an application for a supervisory review of the judgment of 11 November 1998. The applicant was not provided with a copy of the prosecutor ’ s application.

On 19 April 2002 the Presidium of the Tver Regional Court , by way of a supervisory review, amended the judgment of 11 November 1998 and reduced the sentence by three months. The acting prosecutor of the Tver Region was present at the hearing and supported his application. The applicant was not summonsed to the hearing.

It would seem that the applicant was released from prison at the latest in February 2006, having served the entirety of his sentence.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article s 6, 7 and 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 that the Presidium had taken its judgment solely on the basis of the prosecutor ’ s arguments and that it had incorrectly calculated his sentence; that he had not been issued with a copy of the prosecutor ’ s application for a supervisory review and that he had not been summonsed to the hearing of 19 April 2002.

THE LAW

On 3 June 2002 the applicant introduced his application. Since that date the Court has received three letters from him, all dispatched from the prison. The most recent letter was received on 23 April 2003.

On 5 September 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government.

On 29 November 2005 the Government ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On the following day the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 1 February 2006. The Court ’ s letter was sent to the address of the correctional colony where the applicant was serving his sentence.

On 13 January 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 15 March 2006 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in his application being struck out of the list of cases. The letter of 15 March 2006 was sent to the correctional colony.

As the applicant did not reply, on 31 July 2006 the Court sent a letter by registered mail to the applicant ’ s home address as indicated in his application form. Copies of the letters of 30 November 2005, 17 January and 15 March 2006 were attached. The applicant did not reply.

On 17 October 2006 the Court by a registered letter sent to the applicant ’ s home address once again reminded him about the consequences of his failure to respond. No response has been received to date.

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. He has not contacted the Court since 23 April 2003.

The Court recalls that, pursuant to Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court, “applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the applicant”. Under that Rule, it is incumbent on the applicant to provide at least a minimum of information, namely his postal address, enabling the Court to conduct correspondence with him and to proceed with his petition. The Court observes that it has unsuccessfully tried to communicate with the applicant at his place of detention. Assuming that the applicant could have been released while the proceedings before the Court were pending, it subsequently sent correspondence to the applicant ’ s home address. However those attempts also proved to be futile.

In the present case, it appears that the applicant had served his sentence by February 2006 and that he failed to inform the Court of the change of his postal address, when he had been released. Nor did he indicate any provisional address at which communication with him could be effected or appointed a representative with whom the Court could have maintained communication. Thus, the applicant made it impossible for the Court to continue the examination of his case (cf. Babichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 21777/03, 18 May 2006 ).

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 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 Loukis Loucaides Registrar President