Application no. 56261/00
by Georgii Todorov ENDAROV
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 December 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 July 1999,
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 applicant, Mr Georgii Todorov Endarov, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Pazardzhik, Bulgaria. He is represented before the Court by Mr E. Ganchev, a lawyer practising in Pazardzhik, Bulgaria. The respondent Government are represented by their agent, Mrs M Karadjova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant’s pre-trial detention
On 5 May 1999 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicant, he was charged with having committed a robbery and was detained on remand on the basis of, inter alia, the seriousness of the offence, his personality and the existence of other criminal proceedings against him.
On 16 June 1999 the applicant appealed against his detention. The appeal was heard by the Pazardzhik District Court on 26 June 1999, which found in favour of the applicant and ordered his release on bail. The applicant was released on 1 July 1999.
The preliminary investigation against the applicant was concluded on 28 October 1999.
On 17 December 1999 an indictment for robbery against the applicant was submitted to the Pazardzhik District Court.
2. The conditions of detention
The applicant was held in detention at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service.
Upon the submissions of the applicant the cells were small (6 sq.m.) and below street level. There was no natural light and fresh air. There were cockroaches, lice and fleas. A bucket was provided for the sanitary needs of the detained. There was insufficient hot water, soap and other toiletries. There was no possibility to exercise. The food provided was of insufficient quantity and substandard. The applicant had no access to newspapers, books, radio and television. He was not allowed to maintain an active correspondence.
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that he was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.
2. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) that he was detained unlawfully. He submits that the evidence against him was not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that he was guilty of an offence.
3. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he does not have an enforceable right to seek compensation for being a victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5.
4. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment while being detained in the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service.
On 20 October 2004 notice of the application was given to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court and they were invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.
The applicant being of Russian nationality, on 20 October 2004 the Court informed the Russian Government that they may intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 and Rule 44). By letter of 11 January 2005 the Russian Government informed the Court that they did not intend to avail themselves of this possibility.
The respondent Government did not submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the case within the prescribed deadline nor did they ask the Court for any extension of time.
By letter of 3 March 2005, sent by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt, the Court informed the applicant’s representative of the above fact, invited him to make any observations which he may wish to make on behalf of the applicant and to submit any claims for just satisfaction. The letter was received on 10 March 2005.
The applicant did not submit any observations or claims for just satisfaction within the prescribed deadline nor did he ask the Court for any extension of time.
The respondent Government submitted belated observations. By letter of 4 May 2005, they were informed that the President of the Chamber Court had decided not to include them in the case file.
By letter of the same day, sent by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt, the applicant’s representative was informed of the above fact and of the terms of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. He was warned that failure to reply might lead the Court to conclude that the applicant no longer intended to pursue his application. The letter was received on 25 May 2005.
No reply has been received by the Court from the applicant and his representative.
Having regard to the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 of the Convention, which, so far as material, provides 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.”
Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto does not require the continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the application should be struck out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
ENDAROV v. BULGARIA DECISION
ENDAROV v. BULGARIA DECISION