FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 3513/02 by Sergey ALEKSEYEV against Estonia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section) , sitting on 24 August 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Mr J. Borrego Borrego , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 November 2001,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the applicant’s failure to reply to these observations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergey Alekseyev, is an Estonian [Note1] national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Narva. The respondent Government are represented by Mrs M. Hion, Director of the Human Rights Division of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

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

Following his dismissal from work the applicant brought civil proceedings before the Narva City Court ( Narva Linnakohus ) in which he disputed the lawfulness of his dismissal.

At the beginning of the first hearing of the case on 7 February 2001 the applicant filed with the court a written statement requesting the removal of the judge who had been designated to hear his case. He stated in his application as follows:

“As it is known in the city of Narva , Ms L. [the judge] conducts court proceedings unfairly, she launches personal attacks on parties to the proceedings, expresses animosity towards their representatives and violates procedural rules. In these circumstances I have reason to doubt her impartiality and objectivity.”

On 7 February 2001 the judge forwarded the applicant’s statement to the president of the City Court for examination.

By a decision of 28 February 2001 the City Court, without holding an oral hearing, considered that the applicant’s statement was offensive and disrespectful of both the court and the judge. It fined him for contempt of court 3200 kroons (€ 240). The City Court based its decision on Articles 25 and 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On 6 March 2001 the applicant filed a request for an exemption from the fine. He argued that he had not used improper or offensive language in his statement, which is the sole basis on which a fine can be imposed, according to Article 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant also submitted that the City Court took its decision without his being present.

By a decision of 3 April 2001 the City Court dismissed the applicant’s request, finding that his remarks in respect of the judge who had not yet begun examining his case were offensive and disrespectful of the court. It also stated that Article 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not require the presence of a person when deciding on the imposition of a fine.

On 12 April 2001 the applicant filed an appeal against the decision repeating the arguments contained in his request for an exemption from the fine of 6 March 2001.

On 13 July 2001 the Viru Court of Appeal ( Viru Ringkonnakohus ), in a written procedure, held that the imposition of the fine on the applicant was justified, but reduced it to 1600 kroons (€ 102). It observed that judges were not free to choose cases but were obliged to deal with the cases assigned to them. The applicant’s expressions were based on rumours and showed disrespect for the judge who had not even started examining the substance of his case. It also found that under Article 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure a court could fine a person without hearing him or her. However, the person could present his or her objections in an application for an exemption from the fine, which the applicant did.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning the imposition of a fine on him were not fair in that he was not afforded a public hearing. He complained under Article 10 that the measure violated his right to freedom of expression.

THE LAW

On 12 March 2003 the President of the Chamber decided under Rule 54 § 2 (b) that notice of the application should be given to the Government and that they should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention by 10 June 2003.

The Court notes that, after being granted an extension of the time-limit, the Government submitted their observations on 11 August 2003 and that, on 25 August 2003, these observations were communicated to the applicant, who was invited to submit his comments in reply by 7 October 2003.

The Court further observes that the applicant has not replied to this invitation. On 5 November 2003 the Court sent a letter to the applicant by registered mail, drawing his attention to the fact that the time-limit for submission of his observations had expired and that no extension of the time-limit had been requested. The applicant was warned that “... the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.” The delivery notice of this letter, sent by registered mail, has not been returned to the Court.

On 3 February 2004 the Court sent to the applicant another letter of an identical wording by registered mail. According to the delivery notice returned to the Court, this letter was delivered to the applicant’s address and was received by his daughter on 17 February 2004.

The applicant has not replied to any of the above letters. In fact, the last communication by the applicant to the Court was his application of 10 January 2002.

In the light of the above, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require a continuation of the application by virtue of Article 37 § 1 in fine .

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President

[Note1] To be checked.