FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 4358/09 Rafail MURADOV against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 26 November 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Julia Laffranque , President, Khanlar Hajiyev , Erik Møse , judges, and André Wampach , Dep ty Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 January 2009 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Rafail Muradov , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Baku. He was represented before the Court by Mr Y. Khankishiyev , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan . The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov .

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

3. On 11 February 2008 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of theft . On 14 February 2008 the applicant was formally charged under Article 177 (theft) of the Criminal Code. On the same day the Absheron District Court ordered the applicant ’ s pre-trial deten tion for a period of two months .

4. The applicant ’ s pre-trial detention was subsequently extended by the Absheron District Court ’ s decision of 11 April 2008 and the Sumgayit Military Court ’ s decision of 6 May 2008.

5. On 27 May 2008 the Sumgayit Military Court rejected the applicant ’ s request for replacement of his pre-trial detention by house arrest . On 24 June 2008 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal upheld the Sumgayit Military Court ’ s decision of 27 May 2008.

6. By the end of June 2008, the investigation had been completed and the case was forwarded to the Sumgayit Military Court for trial.

7. O n 25 June 2008 the Sumgayit Military Court held a preliminary hearing . At this hearing the court rejected the applicant ’ s request for release and found that the preventive measure of remand in custody should be left “unchanged” .

8. By a judgment of 22 July 2008 the Sumgayit Military Court sentenced the applicant to a fine of 500 Aze rbaijani manats and ordered his release.

COMPLAINTS

9. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that he had been detained without any formal record during the period from 11 to 13 February 2008 and that he had not been brought before a judge within the forty-eight hour period after his arrest as required by the law . He further complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long and that the domestic courts had failed to substantiate their judicial decisions concerning the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and the extension of his pre-trial detention.

10. Relying on Article 6 of the Con vention, the applicant complained that t he Sumgayit District Court ’ s hearing of 6 May 2008 concerning the extensio n of his pre-trial detention had been held in his and his law yer ’ s absence. He also complained that his continued detention had not been promptly reviewed by the domestic courts.

THE LAW

11. The application w as communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. By a letter of 3 July 2012 t he Government ’ s observations were forwarded to the applicant ’ s representative , who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 1 4 August 2012 . No reply was received .

12. By letter dated 17 September 2012 , sent by registered post, the applicant ’ s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 14 August 2012 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ’ s representative ’ s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides 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 applicant ’ s representative received this letter on 4 October 2012 . However, no response has been received.

13. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.

14. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

André Wampach Julia Laffranque Deputy Registrar President