THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 16208/05 Vladimir Aleksandrovich ZAKHAROV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 January 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Helena Jäderblom, President, Dmitry Dedov, Branko Lubarda, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 March 2005,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vladimir Aleksandrovich Zakharov, is a Kazakhstani national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Semey, Kazakhstan.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 3 September 2003 the applicant was arrested in Russia with a view to extradition to Kazakhstan.

On 23 March 2005 the applicant started a hunger strike. Since 1 April 2005 for about a month the applicant was fed via the tube daily.

On 16 September 2005 the applicant was extradited to Kazakhstan.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been force-fed while on hunger strike to protest against his protracted detention.

The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention pending extradition exceeded the maximum period allowed by the national law and that he had been unable to obtain effective judicial review of his detention.

THE LAW

The Government submitted that the application was belated because it had been lodged more than one year after the applicant ’ s preliminary letter.

The applicant explained that due to his extradition he had never received the first letter from the Court dated 3 May 2005 inviting him to complete an application form. He had only received a copy of it (together with the Court ’ s letter dated 7 February 2006) on 10 April 2006 in Kazakhstan. The applicant had sent out the completed application form on 16 May 2006.

The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its established practice and Rule 47 § 5 of the Rules of Court, as in force at the relevant time, it normally considered the date of the introduction of an application to be the date of the first letter indicating an intention to lodge an application and setting out, even summarily, its object. A first communication of this kind would in principle have interrupted the running of the six-month time-limit (see Yartsev v. Russia (dec.), no. 13776/11, § 21, 26 March 2013, and Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, § 19, 1 June 2010). However, where a substantial interval follows before an applicant submits further information about his proposed application or returns the application form, the Court may examine the particular circumstances of the case to determine what date should be regarded as the date of introduction with a view to calculating the start-date of the six-month period imposed by Article 35 of the Convention (see Chalkley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63831/00, 26 September 2002).

On the basis of the available documentary evidence the Court notes the following. On 22 April 2005 the Moscow office of the International Protection Centre, which did not represent the applicant but acted as an intermediary, deposited at the reception desk of the Court the applicant ’ s preliminary letter of 20 March 2005 about his unlawful detention. On 3 May 2005 the Court invited the applicant to submit a completed application form within six weeks since the receipt of the Court ’ s letter. On 15 June 2005 the Moscow office of the International Protection Centre deposited at the Court ’ s reception desk the applicant ’ s additional preliminary letter of 5 April 2005 in which he complained about being force-fed.

Meanwhile, on 2 May 2005 the applicant was transferred from the place of his detention in Tver to Moscow. On 6 September 2005 the applicant was transferred from Moscow to Omsk. On 16 September 2005 the applicant was extradited to Kazakhstan. By a letter of 5 October 2005, deposited at the reception desk of the Court on 3 February 2006 by the Moscow office of the International Protection Centre, the applicant asked the Court to reply to his preliminary letters at his new address in Kazakhstan. On 7 February 2006 the Court sent to the applicant a copy of its first letter of 3 May 2005. On 16 May 2006 the applicant ’ s prison in Kazakhstan sent his completed application form to the International Protection Centre. On 3 November 2006 the Moscow office of the International Protection Centre deposited the application at the reception desk of the Court.

Therefore, during the six months following his initial letters to the Court the applicant was transferred twice and then extradited to Kazakhstan. There is no evidence that the national authorities forwarded the Court ’ s first letter of 3 May 2005 to the applicant after his transfer. Once he reached the prison in Kazakhstan, the applicant informed the Court about his new address by a letter of 5 October 2005. Nevertheless, the Moscow Office of the International Protection Centre brought that letter to the Court only on 3 February 2006. Upon the eventual receipt of a copy of the Court ’ s first letter of 3 May 2005, the applicant submitted his completed application form on 16 May 2006. However, the applicant sent it not directly to the Court, but again to the Moscow office of the International Protection Centre. The latter deposited the application at the Court ’ s reception desk only on 3 November 2006. No explanations of the delays caused by the Moscow Office of the International Protection Office were provided. In such circumstances the Court finds that the date of 3 November 2006 should be considered as the date of the introduction of the application (see, for example, Sokurenko v. Russia , no. 33619/04 , § 100, 10 January 2012 ).

Assuming that the applicant had no remedies in respect of his complaints, the six months began to run in principle from the date of the acts complained of in the application. The applicant ’ s force-feeding stopped by the beginning of May 2005. His detention ended on 16 September 2005 when he was extradited to Kazakhstan. As noted above, the Court accepted 3 November 2006 as the date of introduction of the application. Therefore, the applicant ’ s complaints have been lodged out of time and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares inadmissible the application.

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 February 2017 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Helena Jäderblom              Deputy Registrar President